BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29th of December 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.74/2010
(Admitted on 19.03.2010)
Sri.Girish P.M.
So. Mohan Gowda P,
Aged about 30 years,
RA. Addanapare House,
Devachalla Village,
Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Chandrashekhara N.G.)
VERSUS
1. The Sub Divisional Engineers
Group Sullia,
Dakshina Kannada Telecom District,
Sullia Branch, Sullia Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada.
2. The Principal General Manager,
Dakshina Kannada Telecom District,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Mangalore,
Dakshina Kannada District. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.B.Nanda Kishore).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, he is an agriculturist having agricultural properties in Devachalla Village of Sullia Taluk. It is stated that, the father of the Complainant Mohan Gowda was subscriber of landline telephone provided by the Opposite Parties under the category of the M.P. Quota. Just after his death, the same was transferred in the name of the Complainant by application dated 26.05.2008 and continued as its subscriber. It is stated that, in the month of April 2008, the landline telephone connection of the Complainant was disconnected. The Complainant made oral and written complaints before the Opposite Parties and requested to set-right the same but the Opposite Parties not responded and refused to set-right the same. In the month of May 2008 instead of set-right the landline telephone the Opposite Parties provided substitute telephone facility by adopting Wireless in Local Loop (herein after called ‘WLL’) phone holds No.206417 through the Guthigar Exchange. It is stated that, the above telephone was completely interrupted because of the poor signals, the Complainant made several complaints but the Opposite Parties not made any attempt to set-right the same. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 10.12.2008. Responding the same, the Opposite Parties after inspection of the spot by admitting poor performance of the WLL phone, assured to set-right and reconnect earlier landline telephone of the Complainant but so far not taken any steps. Hence, the Complainant made written complaint dated 10.11.2009 and subsequently issued legal notice but the Opposite Parties not made any attempts to set-right the landline telephone nor make area feasible for WLL phone connection. It is stated that, the Complainant stayed in remote corner area of Devachalla Village which is far away from the head quarters of Taluk and District. The telephone connection requires as a sheer necessity but the Opposite Parties failed to provide the same which amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to set-right and reconnect the landline telephone connection of the Complainant, to pay expenses of Rs.10,000/- towards attempts made to set-right landline telephone and Rs.25,000/- claimed as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed common version, stated that due to non-availability of G.I. wires, the line was converted to WLL and stated that the WLL connection working satisfactory and there was no complaints from others about poor performance of WLL. It is stated that, the Complainant made calls through WLL are successful. The percentage of failure of the call is exaggerated by the Complainant. The condition of the signal and calls were demonstrated to the subscriber and he was convinced that the telephone line is usable in the prevailing conditions. It is stated that, due to the remote geographical position, nothing better can be expected with the prevailing technology. It is stated that, the complaint of the subscriber was attended by adjusting the antenna in correct direction. There was no loss to the subscriber/Complainant due to poor service by BSNL. Through the signal level was low calls could be made. This can be confirmed by calling the subscriber. Many times the same has been kept under observation and confirmed the performance as satisfactory. It is stated that, change in the concept of telephone connection, the landline and WLL connection are equal as far as service conditions are concerned. BSNL as a basic service provider cannot offer options to the subscribers to insist on landline only. In the feasible areas landlines are provided on priority. This being a remote area there is no cable route up to the subscriber’s premises and contended that landline connection technically not feasible as the subscriber is still using the connection till date and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Girish P.M. (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Smt.Sulochana Deva (CW2) and Sri.Venkatramanayya (CW3) – witnesses of the Complainant filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Ramakrishna Bhat P. (RW1), Sub-Divisional Engineer (Group) of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R5 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both parties produced notes of arguments along with citations.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
There is no dispute of the fact that, the father of the Complainant one Mohan Gowda P was the subscriber of landline telephone provided by the Opposite Parties, after his death, the same was transferred in the name of the Complainant and continued as its subscriber.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, in the month of April 2008, the landline connection of the Complainant disconnected. The Complainant made oral and written complaints before the Opposite Parties and requested to set right the same but the Opposite Parties instead of set-righting the landline telephone problem provided substitute telephone facility by adopting Wireless in Local Loop (herein after called ‘WLL’) phone through Guthigar Exchange. The Complainant states that, the Opposite Parties forcibly adopted WLL phone and this phone, because of the poor signals failed to provide stable and proper service. The Complainant made several complaints but the Opposite Parties not made any attempt to set-right the same, later issued a legal notice through Consumer Forum, Sullia but the Opposite Parties failed to take any steps. It is further stated that, without telephone connection Complainant put to inconvenience and mental agony, hence this complaint to reconnect the landline telephone.
The Opposite Parties interalia contended that, the landline connection running through jungle and heavy vegetation was getting repeatedly affected. Due to non-availability of GI wires, the line was converted into WLL. Through the signal level at the premises of the Complainant Sri.Girish P.M is less, calls are successfully made. While providing WLL connection, the condition of the signals and calls were demonstrated to the subscriber/ Complainant and he was convinced that the telephone line was usable in the prevailing conditions and produced one year list of calls generated by the subscriber and contended that, landline connection technically not feasible.
Both the parties filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C7 for the Complainant and Ex R1 to R5 for the Opposite Parties.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Complainant was the subscriber of the landline telephone connection provided by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant in his complaint as well as in his affidavit stated that, in the month of April 2008 the landline telephone connection of the Complainant disconnected and in the month of May 2008 instead of set-righting the landline telephone, the Opposite Parties provided substitute telephone facility by adopting WLL phone holds No.206417 through the Guthigar Exchange. Though it was strongly opposed by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties forcibly adopted WLL phone. The above statement of the Complainant shows that, the Opposite Party provided the WLL telephone facility to the Complainant through the Guthigar Exchange. That itself shows that, due to non-availability of the G.I wires the line was converted to WLL. Further, the list of calls generated by the subscriber in the last complaint period of one year shows that, the bill dated 07.05.2009 – 460 calls were made, 07.07.2009 – 567 calls were made, on 07.09.2009 - 457 calls were made, on 07.11.2009 – 643 calls were made, on 07.01.2010 – 696 calls were made and on 07.03.2010 – 554 calls were made by the subscriber i.e., the Complainant in WLL phone. If the Complainant’s version is believed that the WLL telephone provided by the Opposite Party is completely interrupted because of poor signals and there is no proper service, then definitely the Complainant not possible to make the above said calls through WLL. The above said bill date and the calls made during the above said period was not denied by the Complainant in this case. The Opposite Party sworn to the fact that, the conversion of landline to WLL is for a genuine reason to provide better service to the Complainant and this stands of the Opposite Party department is supported by a circular issued by the BSNL Limited New Delhi dated 15.06.2006 in No.8/2006 PHA and produced the above said circular before this FORA. We have perused the circular dated 15.06.2006, the relevant portion reproduced herebelow:
In case the applicant refused to take connection on WLL, as per the present policy of BSNL, connections beyond 5 kms are to be provided only on WLL using fixed wireless terminals. Even in areas which fall within 5 kms where the area is technically non-feasible on underground cable, a fixed WLL connection is to be offered. Many a times, the applicant refuses to take connection on WLL on maturity of their turn. As a result, they continue to remain in the waiting lists without any useful purpose being served.
2. The matter has been reviewed and the following instructions are issued with the approval of Management Committee of BSNL:-
(i) The telephone connection should be provided to the applicant on maturity of his/her turn using the available media. In case, the applicant, on being offered the connection on WLL, objects to the provision of telephone on WLL, he/she should be intimated about the unavailability of wire line connection through registered post or courier in the format enclosed herewith, by giving two weeks notice from the date of its dispatch clearly stating that he/she will loose his/ her registration and the registration amount along with the interest accrued thereon shall be refunded in case he/she does not accept the connection on WLL and insists on provision of telephone only through landline”.
From the above referred circular, made us very clear that, before converting landline into WLL in case the applicant objects to the provision of telephone on WLL he/she should be intimated about the unavailability of wire line through registered post or courier in the format enclosed with the circular.
On overall looking into the documents as well as the complaint of the Complainant, it shows that, the Complainant is still using the WLL phone connection and the landline of the Complainant is not working. But there is no evidence on record to show that, the WLL phone provided by the Opposite Party has poor signals and the landline connection existed earlier could be the better service than the WLL. But the call list produced by the Opposite Party shows that, the WLL connection given to the Complainant is working. But in the instant case, we have noticed that, before converting the landline into WLL connection the Opposite Parties not followed the procedure i.e., the Opposite Party not intimated about the unavailability of the wire line connection to the Complainant through registered post or courier in the format enclosed with the circular by giving two weeks notice from the date of its dispatch clearly stating that he/she will loose his/her registration and the registration amount along with the interest accrued thereon shall be refunded in case he/she does not accept the connection on WLL and insists on provision of telephone only through landline. But in the instant case, the Opposite Parties failed to follow the guidelines issued by the department.
It is a settled position that, non-adherence or non-observance of the directions, which have come in form of guidelines need to be followed by all in the department. Non-observance of these guidelines itself is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party department. Had they followed these guidelines then they would informed the Complainant about the sudden change of the telephone/disconnection of the telephone and then whatever raised in the version would have had some legs to stand on. The Opposite Parties not produced any copy of the notice to show that the residence of the Complainant is in such a place where the landline telephone is technically not feasible. Admittedly, the Complainant lodged four complaints which includes one complaint through a Consumer Forum, Sullia dated 18.12.2009 but there is no material placed before this FORA to show that the Opposite Parties attended the complaint of the Complainant or sent any intimation stating that, the telephone is technically not feasible. Had they followed their own guidelines then that situation could not have been arisen.
No doubt in the present technology, the change in the concept of telephone is also one among others technology. But the department should not overlook the guidelines before adopting the advanced technology to the consumers. In case, landline connection technically not feasible where the subscriber’s residence is situated in a remote area and there is no cable route upto the subscriber’s premises. There is no wrong the Opposite Party looking for the alternative technical feasibility and also it is not wrong that providing substitute service through WLL connection. Even in the instant case, it appears that the landline connection given to the Complainant technically not feasible and due to non-availability of the GI wires, the line was converted into WLL but the Opposite Party failed to follow the guidelines before converting the landline into WLL connection. This is the case of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party for non-observing internal guidelines and not intimating to the Complainant about the disconnection/restoration of the WLL telephone.
At the same time, we observed that, the Complainant admitted that the WLL telephone connection was provided in the month of May 2008. Before providing the WLL connection, the Opposite Party demonstrated the calls and the condition of the signal. The same has not denied by the Complainant but the Ex C5 i.e., the complaint dated 10.12.2008 reveals that the range of the WLL connection is not feasible/available and lodged a complaint before the General Manager of Telecommunication, Dakshina Kannada District and thereafter on 10.11.2009, 20.01.2010. In reply to the above said complaint, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the WLL signal from Kadaba tower is strong enough to get uninterrupted service but due to strong opposition from the Complainant the number was connected through Guthigar tower and they informed that in case the Complainant want the change of connection to Kadaba Exchange for more stable service, asked him to contact JTO Doddathota. The above correspondences between the parties produced before this Forum shows that the WLL connection given to the Complainant is working. Because of the strong opposition the WLL connection connected through Guthigar tower. The signal from the Kadaba tower more stable service and strong enough to get uninterrupted service. When that being the case, the Complainant should have allowed the Opposite Party to change their connection through Kadaba tower instead of Guthigar tower. The Complainant should co-operate with the Opposite Party to get uninterrupted service. However, we have noticed that, the Complainant is using the WLL phone provided by the Opposite Party and it is proved that, the landline telephone connection is technically not feasible to that area and WLL telephone connection connecting through Kadaba tower is more strong to get uninterrupted service as per the reply of the Opposite Party dated 17.11.2009 (as per Ex R3). Therefore, the Opposite Party is hereby directed to issue a WLL connection through Kadaba tower for uninterrupted service and the Complainant should co-operate the same. Since it is proved that, the landline connection is technically not feasible to the Complainant’s residence, the relief of the Complainant to provide landline connection cannot be considered in this case. At the same time, the Opposite Parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards the deficiency of service by not issuing prior intimation as per their guidelines.
In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are hereby directed to rectify the defect found in the WLL connection provided by the Opposite Party by giving a connection through Kadaba tower to avoid the interruption and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are hereby directed to rectify the defect found in the WLL connection provided by the Opposite Parties by giving a connection through Kadaba tower to avoid the interruption and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/ payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 14 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of December 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Girish P.M. – Complainant.
CW2 – Smt.Sulochana Deva – witness of the Complainant.
CW3 – Sri.Venkatramanayya – witness of the Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 07.05.2008: Telephone bill for Rs.563/-.
Ex C2 – 26.05.2008: Copy of the application.
Ex C3 – 26.05.2008: Copy of the affidavit.
Ex C4 – 02.06.2008: Copy of the complaint.
Ex C5 – 10.12.2008: Copy of the complaint.
Ex C6 – 10.11.2009: Copy of the complaint.
Ex C7 – 18.12.2009: Copy of the notice of the Consumer Forum Sullia to the Opposite Parties.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.Ramakrishna Bhat P., Sub-Divisional Engineer (Group) of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1 – 10.12.2008: Complaint addressed by the Complainant to the General Manager, DK Telecom District.
Ex R2 – 10.11.2009: Complaint addressed by the Complainant.
Ex R3 – 17.11.2009: Reply to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
Ex R4 – 20.01.2010: Reply by the AGM (MIS) O/o. Principal General Manager, Telecom District to the Consumers Forum, Sullia.
Ex R5 - : Details of the calls made from Complainant’s telephone No.206417.
Documents produced by the Opposite Parties:
Doc. No.1: 15.06.2006: Circular issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Delhi.
Dated:29.12.2010 PRESIDENT
