Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/38/2015

V.Dhananjaya Reddy, S/o. Nadamuni Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom District, B.S.N.L. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Hari Prasad

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 07.09.2015

Order Date:25.04.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

MONDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.38/2015

 

 

Between

 

V.Dhananjaya Reddy,

S/o. Nadamuni Reddy,

Old Sanampatla Village & Post,

Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor District., A.P.                                                                     … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The General Manager,

            Telecom District, B.S.N.L.,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District., A.P.

 

2.         The Junior Telecom Officer,

            B.S.N.L. Office, Chandragiri,

            Chittoor District., A.P.                                                         …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.Hari Prasad, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.V.Dhanjaya Varama, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to restore the telephone connection bearing No.0877-2276091 with broadband connection, 2) to direct the opposite parties to repay the monthly rentals to the complainant for the period during which telephone was not worked and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing  mental agony to the complainant and also to pay costs of the litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant is the customer of the opposite parties, having land line telephone bearing No.0877-2276091, in old Sanampatla village of Chandragiri mandal, Chittoor District, and he is paying the telephone bills regularly. That his telephone was not working, as such he lodged a complaint on 10.04.2015 to the opposite parties. Again he sent another complaint on 13.06.2015, requesting the opposite parties to rectify the telephone, but the opposite parties paid deaf ear on his complaint. Later, the complainant met the     1^st opposite party directly and thereafter he also made a complaint through “call your G.M. programme” on 21.07.2015, wherein opposite party No.1 (General Manager) assured that the problem will be solved soon, but still the problem is not solved, and that the complainant applied for broadband connection on 26.11.2014 for monthly rental plan of Rs.675/- and also paid the same, but the opposite parties refused to give broadband connection and sent message on 26.08.2015 that land line connection will be disconnected. Opposite parties received monthly rentals for the land line from January 2015 to June 2015, even though the telephone was not working from April 2015. On 04.08.2015, the complainant sent complaint-cum-notice to opposite party No.1 and Chief General Manager, Telephones, Hyderabad, calling upon the opposite parties to rectify the problem, else he will take appropriate legal action, but in vain. Hence the complaint.  

            3.  Opposite party No.1 filed counter / written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.2, admitting that the complainant is their customer since 1998, and also admitted his land line telephone was not working from 07.04.2015 and denied other allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties further contended that the telephone No.0877-2276091 was installed at old Sanambatla village, which is at a long distance of 5.7 k.m., from Chandragiri exchange, and it became faulty because of cable damage due to road widening and the cable damage became irreparable. Inspite of several attempts made by the opposite parties, they could not repair the same, the cable damages in some places could not be located even due to cement concrete road. In “call your GM programme” on 21.07.2015, it was informed to the complainant that the cable fault could not be repaired. Thereafter, the General Manager decided to close the connections working at old Sanambatla village, due to irreparable cable damage and to close the complaint. Accordingly, on 14.08.2015 decision was taken to close the telephones bearing Nos. 0877-2276280, 2276091 (belongs to complainant), 2276088 and 2276383 in Sanambatla village. Out of the remaining two telephones are VPTs and another one was already under disconnection.

            4.  That the Divisional Engineer, Tirupati Rural, vide his letter No.SDE (Rural/2015-16/BSNL/Tirupati, dt:24.08.2015, sent notice to complainant referring his complaint dt:04.08.2015 that his telephone No.2276091 could not be repaired due to cable damage at several places and further informed that the cable is passing through Kalluru and Thondavada, which is about 5.7 k.m. in length and that there is no possibility for providing broadband connection for his telephone, as such his telephone connection will be disconnected by 01.09.2015 and also informed the complainant to apply for refund of deposit amount paid, pending with the opposite parties. The Divisional Engineer, Tirupati Urban, intimated the complainant on 15.09.2015 to supply his bank account particulars including IFSC code number and branch of the bank etc. for processing the refund of deposits. The other telephones of the Sanambatla village also disconnected because of faulty cable. The revenue of the four telephones of Sanambatla village is less than Rs.500/- p.m., so laying of new cable worth lakhs of rupees is not possible, as such there is no possibility to restore the telephone of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            5.  Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and their respective written arguments as well and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B5 for the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for both parties.

           

 

6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii). To what relief?

            7.  Point No.(i):- the admitted facts are that, the complainant is the customer of opposite parties since 1998. There is no dispute with regard to payment of telephone bills by the complainant. The telephone bearing No.0877-2276091 of the complainant was not working since April 2015, that the complainant made complaint to the opposite parties once on 10.04.2015, again on 13.06.2015 and finally on 21.07.2015 in “call your G.M. programme”. Admittedly, the telephone was not working from April 2015. Complaints were also not in dispute, but the reasons for not rectifying the telephone of complainant are that the cable was damaged irreparable in some places between Chandragiri exchange and Sanambatla village due to widening of roads. It is also further stated by the opposite parties in their written version as well as in their evidence affidavit that in some places they could not trace-out even the damaged cables because of cement concrete road that was laid. Another ground is that they have to invest lakhs of rupees for laying cable from Chandragiri exchange to Sanambatla village, which requires 5.7 k.m. length of cable wire. According to the opposite parties, there are only 4 land line telephones in Sanambatla village viz. 1) 0877-2276280, 2) 2276091 (belongs to complainant), 3) 2276088 and 4) 2276383, from all the said telephones, the department hardly getting Rs.500/- p.m. Therefore, the opposite parties further stated that for getting Rs.500/- p.m., the department cannot invest lakhs of rupees for laying fresh cable from Chandragiri exchange to Sanambatla village. There is no such feasibility, as such there is no possibility for either to restore the damaged cable or to provide broadband connection to the complainant. The complainant applied for broadband connection on 26.11.2014 and deposited Rs.675/- for that purpose. Since the cable was damaged, the opposite parties could not provide broadband connection to the complainant.

            8.  In support of the contention of the opposite parties that they could not get even a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. from Sanambatla village customers, they have filed Ex.B1 external invoice in respect of the telephone No.2276091 of complainant for the period from 06.05.2010 to 06.08.2015, from May 2010 to April 2013, the telephone bills are below Rs.300/- except in the month of December 2010 wherein it was Rs.312.37/-, that too for bi-monthly bills, from June 2013 to August 2014 each bi-monthly bill is Rs.302.13/-, Rs.309.21/-, Rs.247.19/- and Rs.298.43/-, then Rs.345.62/-, Rs.376.62/-, Rs.287.64/-, Rs.316.86/- and Rs.229.75/-, that his telephone bill is hardly Rs.150/- p.m. for the subsequent period from November 2014 to July 2015, per each month the bill is Rs.101/- for May 2015 to July 2015 it is Rs.125/- p.m., that the complainant being the customer of opposite parties, appears to have paid only minimum bill per every month not exceeding Rs.150/-. Out of 4 telephones, the department is getting only Rs.500/- p.m. or so. When that is the case, there is genuine reason on the part of opposite parties not to lay a fresh cable by investing lakhs of rupees. Even according to complainant, bill paid by the complainant under Ex.A1 is only Rs.101.13/- p.m. and for another telephone under Ex.A5 shows that complainant has paid Rs.326/- for the months of July and August 2015. Under the above circumstances, it is also not possible for the opposite parties to provide broadband connection to the complainant. When there is no cable to Sanambatla village, as the existing cable was damaged in several places and not even locatable in some places, the contention of the opposite parties appears to be quite reasonable and genuine and therefore we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also communicated the complainant through Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 that the telephone cable was damaged beyond repair and it is not possible for them to invest lakhs of rupees for laying fresh cable for about 5.7 k.m. and also further informed that the telephone connections in the Sanambatla village will be disconnected from 01.09.2015 and also requested the complainant under Ex.B3 to furnish the bank account particulars for finalizing the refund amounts. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            9.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of our discussion made on point No.1, and since there is no possibility for restoration of the telephone connection and also to broadband connection to the complainant, as the cable was damaged in several places and the cable could not be located in some places because of laying of cement concrete road, while widening of the roads, that apart total telephone bills from the Sanambatla village was not exceeding Rs.500/- p.m. (in all 4 telephones), since there are no latches on the part of the opposite parties or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in our opinion the complainant is not entitled to the compensation as sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            10.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion under points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that complaint is to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Complainant is advised to receive the refund amount of Rs.1,001/- (Rupees one thousand and one only), as was prepared by the department and filed a cheque bearing No.195097 dt:03.12.2015, in the name of the complainant.

              Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of April, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: V. Dhananjaya Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.

 

RW-1: B. Mohan Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Bunch of Telephone bills in Original along with Payment receipts (Telephone Bills Nos.4, Payment Receipts Nos.3) Bill Date: 06.04.2015.
	Broadband payment receipt in Original. Dt: 26.11.2014.
	Office copy of Legal notice issued to the Defendant. Dt: 04.08.2015.
	Acknowledgement from the Defendant. Dt: 07.08.2015.
	Photo copy of Telephone bill Dt: 05.09.2015 filed on behalf of the Complainant.
	Photo copy of Message from the Opposite Parties to M.Krishna Reddy filed on behalf of the Complainant.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Details of complainant telephone bills (Call Register/ External Invoices).
2.	Notice Sent by the D.E (Rural) to the Complainant. Dt: 24.08.2015.
3.	Intimation sent to the complainant by D.E. Dt: 15.09.2015.
4.	Order of the GMTD or Disconnection of Telephone Numbers.
5.	Diagram of Cable line.

 

 

                                                                                                                         Sd/-                    

                                                                                                               President

         

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

           

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.