This is a case for new telephone connection and compensation.
The Complaint’s case in short is that he applied for a Land Line Telephone connection on 07.09.2000 along with a Demand Draft of Rs.500/-. But having no response, the Complainant informed the matter to the Chief General Manager, West Bengal Telecom Circle, Vigilence Officer as well as Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, purba Medinipur. The OP gave 5 connections in the village of the Complainant in May 2002 and stated that due to shortage of cable capacity, no further connection can be provided. It has come to the knowledge of the complainant that a new connection being No. 258945 has been provided in the year 2004 to Sri Debmalya Chakraborty, Village Saira. Further telephone Connection was given to various applicants of the same village except the Complainant through underground cable as well as electric post. On 21.08.2004 the Complainant was intimated by the OP that due to technical non feasibility, land line connection could not be provided. Alternatively, the Complainant might be pro vided WLL telephone connection. However, it was not clear to the Complainant why it was not techinically feasible to provide Land Line Telephone connection to him. The person who were provided Land line connection in the same village are Sri Tapan Kumar Hazra (Tel. No. 258017), Sri Sudarshan Khatua (Tel. NO. 258747) and Sri Keshab Chandra Hazra(Tel. No. 258796). Under the circumstances, the Complainant prays for telephone connection through underground cable line and compensation Rs. 1 Lakh for loss of working capacity and loss for future prospect and social status and for mental agony etc.
The OP contested the case by filing a written statement wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and also asserts that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by limitation. The OP also submits that the Complainant submits the application on 30.11.2000 with D.D. No. 906300 dt. 20.11.200. He further state that it is technically not feasible to provide land line connection and the complainant Sri S.P. Adhikary has refused to take WLL connection. The SDE (VO), Sri S.K. Chakraborty physically inspected the house of Sri S. P. Adhikary on 28-06-2004 along with other officer and SDE/MCD, JTO/KLG and TM/NKB. On that spot, SDE/VO requested him to take W.L.L. connection which is so easy to provide. The S.D.E./V.O. told Sri S.P. Adhikary that he personally came from Kolkata to provide this connection and there is no such possibility to provide this connection by Land line due to involvement of incurring heavy expenditure. But the Complainant refused his proposal. So, it is not true that the Complainant did not get any response from the authority concerned. The connection of NEB 258945 was provided on 17.03.2004 to Sri Debmalya Chakraborty who registered his name under ‘Biswas’ exchange of SDO (T) Tamluk on 07.02.2001 vide registration No. 41. This case was forwarded by SDO (T) Tamluk as the dept. was unable to open a New Exchange at ‘Biswas’ due to some technical problem and it is nearest to existing DP i.e. only 30 mtr. Distance from DP under Nonakuri Bazar Exch. The connection was provided on 17.03.2004 and the OP issued a letter to Sri. SP. Adhikary vide No. MCD-65/VIG/04-05/002 dt. 21.08.2004 regarding technically non feasibility of the connection of Sri S.P. Adhikary. The OP also submits that one old connection was closed bearing telephone No. NKB-258230 and utilized this spare pair to provide connection to Sri D. Chakraborty which was nearest to DP and connection was provided in the month of March 2004 i.e. in the year ending period on the development point of view. The distance of the house of Sri. S.P. Adhikary from the house of Sri. D. Chakrabory is about 725 mtrs. The OP also stated that telephone NO. 258017 is provided as it is a VPY and MOC case, telephone No. 258747 whose registration no. is 297 dt. 31.08.2000 and telephone no. 258596 was provided as it is working at Kakharda Ramkrishna High School. This connection was provided under special category at village Kakharda. Under the circumstances, the OP prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for Decision
On the basis of above pleadings by both parties, the following points are taken up for consideration.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to have any compensation as prayed for from the OP?
Decision
Point No.1. It is admitted by both the parties that the Complainant deposited money with the OP for having ne telephone connection. So, admittedly it can be said that the Complainant is a Consumer under the OP. Further, it is the case of the OP that the case is not maintainable as it is barred by time limitation. The letter dt. 21.08.2004 issued by the OP stating that telephone connection can not be saturated by Land line due to technically non feasibility and the case was filed with this Forum on 14.10.2005 i.e. within two years of cause of action dt. 21.08.2004. Therefore, it can not be said that it is barred by time limitation. Under the circumstances, we can say that the Complainant is a Consumer under the OP and the case is maintainable in its present form.
Point No.2. It is the case of the Complainant that in spite of depositing Demand Draft and application on 07.09.2000, telephone connection has not been provided to him till date, though various other applicants have been provided with telephone connection in the same village. The OP categorically denied stating that telephone connection has not been given to any person who registered their name after the Complainant. But from the written statement (Para 10) filed by the OP, it is evident that one Sri D. Chakraborty who was registered at Tamluk under proposed ‘Biswas’ on 07.02.2001 has been provided with telephone connection though the Complaint’s application is dt. 30.11.2000. So the application of the Complainant is of earlier date than that of Sri Debmalya Chakraborty. However, connection has been provided to the letter applicant violating serial number. Further, the Complainant stated in his petition that 3 other telephone connections were given in their village. Originally, the tel. no. of Sri Keshab Chandra Hazra was mentioned in the complaint as 258596, which he subsequently amended on 28.04.2006 as 258796 and served a copy of the said amendment petition to the OP. Though the OP explained the reason behind giving telephone connection to various persons based on the number given in the original complaint, he has not said anything about the amended number i.e. 258796 either in his written statement or in the written argument. Here lies the question whether there is any special treatment by violating the serial number and norms. This is no doubt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Moreover, we are in a fix to understand why special treatment was meted out to Sri Debmalya Chakraborty(Tel No.258945). It seems there was some lacuna in providing telephone connection to Sri. D. chakraborty. The OP has stated that Land line connection cannot be provided as it is technically non feasible. But what is feasible and what is not feasible has not been explained by the OP. As a public utility service provider, it is always expected of telecom dept. that it would render adequate and reasonable efficient service, without unjust discrimination to all members of the public to whom its use and scope of operation extend and who apply for such service and comply with necessary procedures of the public utility. Considering this aspect we can say that the Complainant has been deprived of his legitimate right to have new telephone connection like others in his village and the OP has violated norms of natural justice which is no doubt deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which the Complainant is entitled to have telephone connection from the OP.
Point No.3. On the basis of foregoing discussions and materials on record we are of opinion that the Complainant is entitled to have new Land line telephone connection immediately. The Complainant has claimed Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation but he has not categorically explained the quantum of loss he faced for such amount. So, we are not in a position to allow compensation as claimed by him.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The Complainant is entitled to have Land Line Telephone Connection from the O.P. The O.P. is directed to provide the same by one month from this date failing which the Complainant is entitled to have the same by execution through this forum after expiry of the period mentioned above.
