( Passed on dated 24^th  March, 2015 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant is consumer of B.S.N.L. since several years having land line telephone No. 230393.  The above telephone No. 230393 was not working/dead, since25.07.2014.  The complainant had immediately launched complaint with opposite party No. 2. 

2.            The complainant had again issued letter on dt. 02.08.2014 & dt. 13.08.2014. Even after due receipt of above letters, the opposite party failed to attend complaint and repair phone line due to which the phone of complainant was not working/dead.       

3.            Lastly on dt. 30.08.2014, the complainant had issued legal notice to opposite party no. 1 & 2, thereby call upon to start tele-phone No. 230393.  But the opposite party failed to start the telephone of complainant till filing of case.  The act of O. P. No. 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has faced tremendous physical and mental harassment.

4.            After receiving the notice issued by the Forum, the O.P. appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement before the forum. 

5.            In their reply, the O. P. accepted that the complainant is consumer of the O. P. having phone no. 230393.  In para no. 4 & 5 the opposite parties submitted that after receipt of complainant regarding non-functioning of phone, the concern line staff went on spot and found that some portion of underground cable was damaged and the connection is not feasible on cable due to multiple cable fault on the distribution cable.  That, the above fact had duly informed to the complainant and had advised to obtain ‘WLL’ services i.e. wireless facility.  But the complainant had refused to obtain ‘WLL’ services.  That, after receiving the cable from store and also notice from this forum, the O. P. had immediately replaced some damage portion of underground cable and by using overhead telephone line from distribution box; telephone service of complainant came to be restored.  Thus the O. P. had not committed any deficiency in service and carry out repairing as soon as possible.

              The O. P. had immediately repaired the cable after receiving cable from store.  It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter as per provision of Telegraphic Act.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.    

6.            The complainant has filed Copy of letter given to the opposite party at page no. 10, Copy of receipt of courier at page no. 11, Copy of letter dated 13/08/2014 at page no. 12, Copy of notice sent by registered post at page no. 14, postal receipts & acknowledgements at page no. 15 on record.

7.            The complainant argued that in spite of several request letters sent to O.P. but O. P. did not restored the connection.  And has not sent any reply or relaxation in bill also.  It amounts to negligency of service.

8.            The learned counsel for opposite party  Mr.S.B.Rajankar argued that  the Forum has no jurisdiction as per Judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager vs. Krishnan V.M. (2009) SCC 481.  There was non availability of material for repair hence it could not restore within time.

9.            Considering the rival contention of the party & submission made before us the following points arise for consideration & finding there on along with reasons.

REASONING & FINDINGS

10.                    The O.P. has not disputed that the complainant is consumer of O.P. and having telephone land line connection No. 07182-230393.  The telephone has been used for personal and for shop which is for earning and livelihood hence the complainant is “consumer”.       Hence the answer to Question No.1 is yes.

11.                   The O.P. put their defense that the O.P. after receipt of complaint one person deputed for repair and  found there was cable damage the connection is not feasible due to multiple cable fault and this fact is informed to complainant and advice him to take “WLL” wireless facility connection service but the complainant refused for “WLL” new connection.  The cables were not available with department.  As soon as it made available the service of complainant restored on.  The contention of O.P. has not been supported with any documentary evidence on record.

12.                   The complainant has after lodging of the complaint issued reminder on 02/08/2014, 13/08/2014 and thereafter issued notice on 30/08/2014 for restoration of telephone service.  The notice is served on O.P.. The O.P. did not take any pain to restore the services nor issued any reply to complainant for the complaints and reminders.

13.                   No written communication in that respect has been filed by O.P. on record.  On the other hand after receipt of notice from Forum after the filing of the complaint, the O.P. restored the telephone service.  The O.P. has not given any relaxation in charges of bill amount for the period of disconnection.  The telephone was dead from 25/07/2014.  The telephone was not restored till service of legal notice dated 30/08/2014.  The telephone service was restored after receipt of complaint case notice from Consumer Forum.   The O.P. has not replied any difficulty for not to restore the telephone connection.  No affidavit of authorities for difficulty in restoration of connection has been filed in the case.  Therefore, the act of O.P. amounts to negligency of service.

14.                   In Misc.Application No. 204/2014 in Revision Petition No. 1228/2013 before National Commission, New Delhi between Bharti Hexacom Ltd.Vs. Komal Prakash decided on dated 02/05/2014 clarified that, “ In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom V. M.Krishnan & Anr.,[(2009) 8 SCC 481].  vide a letter dated 24.01.2014, the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, while responding to the communication received from the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of West Bengal on 07.10.2013, in relation to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in M.Krishnan (Supra), has clarified that, “the said decision involved a dispute between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which was a “Telegraph Authority” under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to the hiving off of telecom services into a separate company, viz., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  However, as the powers of a “Telegraph Authority” are now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, and also in the BSNL, Section 7B of the said Act will have no application and, therefore, the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”

              Therefore, the complaint is maintainable and forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for deficiency is committed by O.P. hence the point no. 2 & 3 decided accordingly.

              Hence the following order.            

-: ORDER :-

1.            The Complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental torture and agony for unreasonable delay in restoration of service of telephone to complainant.

3.            The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- for litigation charges.

4.            The above amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.