DATE OF FILING: 15.10.2015
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.05.2018.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Smt. Sitaratna Mahapatra has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the cases of the complainant is that she is a widow and senior citizen subscriber of telephone number 0680-2626594 under the O.Ps and the above land line was connected to her residence since a decade. The O.P.No.1 is the SDO of BSNL having his network operation in the area of the complainant and the O.P.No.2 is the Junior Engineer of BSNL having his operational work in the area of the complainant having his office at Berhampur. She has taken the land line top contact with his family members who are away from the village and the village of the complainant is also falling in the remote and high sensity area. So also in her old age she needs to contact with the Doctors and emergency help for which the above telephone was connected to her residence. The above telephone was off line since December 2014 and in this regard the complainant has lodged a written complains before the O.Ps but no such corrective measure has been taken by the O.Ps. The matter stood thus and the telephone was out of order since then the O.Ps were issued the rental bill bearing No. 143484894 dated 6.121.2014 of Rs.234.60 for the period of 01.10.2014 to 30.11.2014 as the telephone was off the line during that period and the complain lodged with the O.Ps so also the service was not been given to the complainant during these period but the O.Ps were raised the rental bills against the complainant. The complainant has issued a Registered letter to the O.Ps through her lawyer on dated 19.02.2015 for resuming the telephone service of the above telephone number of the complainant and to waive out the rental bills for the above period but the O.Ps though received the notice are failed to give the reply and kept silent not appeared to rectify the telephone. The complainant is an old lady and senior citizen staying alone at her residence is unable to keep contact with the relatives in some emergency purposes and due to default and long period off line of the above telephone she has been deprived of from the service by the O.Ps and the O.Ps are the service providers for the subscribers of their own are failed to provide services. The O.Ps are miserably failed to discharge their services to the complainant and due to deficiencies of services rendered by the O.Ps the complainant has suffered severe mental agony and financial loss of not getting her legitimate service from the O.Ps. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the telephone/ISD calls made to the kith and kins who are residing abroad by going to nearest booth by taking auto since last six months so also to consult with the physician to visit Berhampur along with the accrued interest from the date of claim till the payment made, Rs.4000/- towards the expenses for mental agony and deficiencies of service, litigation expenses etc. and award the cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps though appeared through their advocate but did not file their written version as such they are set exparte on 03.05.2016 by this learned Forum. But the O.Ps filed a petition through his advocate to recall the order dated 3.5.2016. As this Forum had no jurisdiction to recall its own order as such the recall petition of the O.Ps was rejected on 1.6.2016. Against the order dated 1.6.2016, the O.Ps preferred revision before the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Odisha, Cuttack who set-aside the order of the Forum on 5.12.2016 with a direction to this learned Forum for accepting the written version of the O.Ps. Accordingly the O.Ps filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not specifically admitted herein. Basing on the complaint of the complainant, the O.Ps attended the same and found that there was no defect of the system and it was intimated verbally. Due to non- payment of the bill dated 06.12.2014 and 06.02.2015 the telephone connection outgoing facility was automatically disconnected by the system on 14.01.2015. Inspite of the stoppage of outgoing facility as the complainant had not paid the tariff; the computer system had automatically stopped the incoming facility of the said telephone on 15.02.2015. The complainant for the last time had paid the bill on 15.10.2014 and no payment has been made thereafter. The computer system before stopping outgoing and incoming facility had intimated the facts to the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation or costs as prayed by the complainant. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of final hearing we heard argument from the advocate of both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record. In the instant case the complainant for the first time intimated the O.Ps regarding his grievance on 2.1.2015 which is after receiving the monthly rental bill No 143484894 dated 6.12.2014 but she failed to file any postal receipt or any endorsement of O.Ps that they have received her complaint. Further on 20.2.2015 the advocate for the complainant has sent pleader notice to O.Ps by Registered post. It reveals from the materials on record, that the complainant has not paid the telephone rental Bill bearing No. 143484894 dated 6.12.2014 and bill bearing No. 147691388 dated 6.2.2015 etc. The complainant has also admitted that he has not paid the telephone rental bill No. 143484894 dated 6.12.2014 as such due to non-payment of the telephone bill dated 06.12.2014 and dated 06.02.2015 by the complainant, the outgoing facility of the said telephone of the complainant was automatically disconnected by the system on 14.01.2015. The Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in case of General Manager, Telephones versus D.K.Singh reported in 1995 (2) CPR 510 that “Telephone Department is entitled to disconnect the telephone without any notice once the bill has been served and there has been a default in payment of such bill”. In the light of the above decision of law the case of the complainant deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed without any costs.
In the result, we dismissed the case of the complainant due to devoid of merits without cost. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 09th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
