By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get an Order directing the opposite party to provide uninterrupted telephone connection together with refund of bill amount collected by opposite party during the interrupted period along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite party. Opposite party provided land line connection in the name of the complainant's brother Maroof. P where in the house complainant and his brother reside. He is regularly paying the bill amount without any latches. In the month of October 2015 onwards the said telephone connection was not working properly and the connection became out of order. The complainant booked complaint about the interrupted telephone service to BSNL. Thereafter he contacted directly to opposite parties and requested to rectify the error but opposite parties has not taken any steps to rectify the defects. Thereafter on receipt of the bill for the month of December 2015 filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party with a prayer to get uninterrupted service from opposite party together with refund of the bill amount.
3. On receipt of notice, opposite party version filed stating that the complainant is not a consumer of telephone connection No.04936220099. Sri. Maroof. P, Vazhakandy House, Kalluvayal, Sulthan Bathery is the real subscriber. It is further submitted that telephone services provided by BSNL is subject to the conditions set forth in Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. It is a well settled fact of law that all telephone connections are subject to technical feasibility. As per Rule 429 of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951, a subscriber shall not transfer the telephone without the permission of BSNL authorities. The said telephone number is not yet been transferred to the name of the complainant. The telephone line was reported faulty in 1st October, 2015 and on the basis of customer complaint our maintenance staff immediately attended the above fault and found the fault was due to severe damage of the distribution cable and same happened between Sub office and distribution point. Rectification of fault requires trenching at various points and replacement of underground cable. BSNL field staff tried to locate the fault with the existing equipments available in the Telephone exchange Sulthan Bathery and it is found that damages to the cable were occurred in multiple places. Even though the located faults were rectified, the telephone could not be made in working condition due to non locating of Some other damages occurred to the cable. Hence a cable fault locator with the advanced facility was to be brought from outside the division A locator from Mananthavady division was brought and utilizing the service of the facilities available with the above equipment, additional multiple faults found were rectified by 4th January 2016. The delay in rectification of fault was beyond the control of this opposite party. There was no willful negligence from the part of this opposite party in rectifying the faults. It is to be noted that several distinct actions were to be taken for rectifying the multiple faults due to severe damages occurred to the cable. The necessary rent rebate would be allowed to the subscriber of the telephone as per existing instructions of the subject. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint and version the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?.
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of opposite party?.
3. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1, complainant alleged that the complainant's brother is the consumer of opposite party, the land line connection is provided in the name of his brother wherein the complainant and his brother reside. Now the brother of the complainant is working at abroad. Now this complainant is using this connection as beneficiary. In the version, opposite party challenged that the complainant is not a consumer, hence he is not competent to file this complaint before this Forum.
6. In the deposition of PW1 he deposed that the land line connection is in the name of his brother. This complainant and the subscriber of opposite party together resides in this house as such this complainant is the beneficiary of the opposite party. Opposite party opposed this stating that it is a well settled fact of law that all telephone connections are subject to technical feasibility. As per Rule 429 of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951, a subscriber shall not transfer the telephone without the permission of BSNL authorities. The said telephone number is not yet been transferred to the name of the complainant.
7. On going through the evidences and records this Forum is of the view that Complainant is a consumer under Consumer under Section 2(1) d(II) of Consumer Protection Act. It defines consumer “ Hirer or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hire or avails of the services for the consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person”. Hence in our view this complainant is a beneficiary of opposite party's service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Complainant's case is that on 2015 October onwards the service of the landline connection was interrupted, even after repeated complaints opposite party not cured the defects and issued regular bill demanding to remit the bill during the interrupted period. Opposite party contented that they had attended the fault immediately, but the fault was due to severe damage of distribution cable and the same happened between sub office and the distribution point. Rectification of fault requires trenching at various points and replacement of underground cable. BSNL field staff tried to locate the fault with the existing equipments available in the Telephone exchange Sulthan Bathery and it is found that damages to the cable were occurred in multiple places. Even though the located faults were rectified, the telephone could not be made in working condition due to non locating of Some other damages occurred to the cable. Hence a cable fault locator with the advanced facility was brought from outside the division with the help of above equipment, additional multiple faults found were rectified by 4th January 2016. The delay in rectification of fault was beyond the control of the opposite party.
9. At the time of cross-examination complainant admitted that now the defect was rectified and now opposite party is providing their service without failure. Complainant further alleged that opposite party was deficient in their service by issuing regular bill for the interrupted period. In reply of this opposite party stated that necessary rent rebate will be allowed to the subscriber. At the time of hearing opposite party produced one Bill (No.504592706 dated 05.04.2016) for the period of 01.02.2016 to 31.03.2016 showing the rent rebate by adjustment of previous bill amount as per existing instructions. On verification of the same we noticed that bill amount of Rs.491/- were adjusted in this bill.
10. For the reason stated above this Forum found that there is delay in rectifying the fault from the part of opposite party. Whatever may the reason opposite party must provide better service to the customers and we noticed that opposite party issued the monthly bill in time without providing proper service to them and they have collected the bill amount for the interrupted period without delay and once again they proved that they were very punctual in issuing and collected bill amount. On going through the evidences we found that the fault was occurred in the month of October 2015, admittedly the defect was rectified in the month of Janurary 2016. it means opposite party takes 4 months time to rectify the defects of the land line connection. In our view this is a clear case of deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.
10. Point No.3:- Since the Point No.2 is found against the opposite party, they are liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation for the delay in rectifying the faults and also opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the opposite party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the whole sum till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2016.
Date of Filing:31.12.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Abdul Samad Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
Nil
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD
a/-
