By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to give proper connection and to pay cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant was the consumer of opposite parties and the telephone Number is 04936 274649. While so in the month of March 2014 the telephone connection of the complainant is disrupted due to the damage of cable. It was reported to all opposite parties and a complaint was also submitted to the opposite party. After that the problem was rectified and the connection is effected in the month of August 2014 but within one week again the reported complaint occurred and the telephone became dead. Thereafter also the complainant complained to the opposite parties but problem was not rectified till so far. So on 24.07.2015 the complainant send a lawyer notice to the opposite parties and they replied that the above said connection is closed on 20.01.2015. The complainant further stated that all the bills due to the opposite parties were paid in time and due to the non availability of the telephone connection the complainant caused much difficulties and hardship on various aspects and non providing the proper connection to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to give proper telephone connection to the complainant and to pay compensation and costs caused to the complainant on all aspects.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and they filed version stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in case No. 7687/2004 clearly stated that the dispute regarding BSNL and its subscribers is to be settled by arbitration as per Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is humbly submitted that all 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. The Petitioner was provided with telephone connection 04936-274649 from Padinjarathara Telephone Exchange which is situated at a very interior area Kuttiyamvayal, back side of Banasura Sagar Dam. It is about 8.5 Kms with primary cable having a distance of 4.69 kms from pillar and distribution cable having length of 3.81 kms. Since no public conveyance was available in this route BSNL used to send Jeep from Kalpetta to attend the faults. The service was maintained by BSNL without any complaints arranging pole less facility. But during March 2014 the pathway was excavated by the Contractor arranged for executing the work of water pipe line project for the panchayath authorities and while so the underground cables of BSNL was severely damaged. Then it was temporarily set right by our staff, but recurrent faults were reported. On inspection it was found that 500 meters length cables was damaged beyond repair and the petitioner was intimated same and all the facts are well known to him. It is humbly submitted that separate cable pair from exchange to subscriber premises is necessary for each telephone connection. Replacing such long span of cable for providing a connection is not presently viable. The petitioner was informed about the above fact and he was offered a wireless connection, vide SDOT Kalpetta letter No.SDOT/KPT.Genl/2014-15 dated 29.11.2014, which is yet be accepted by the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to respond to the above communication the land line telephone was closed on 20.01.2015. It is further submitted that the eligible rebate in rental was also allowed to the petitioner for the faulty period. These Opposite parties are prepared to provide WLL connectivity to the petitioner which is another access technology for providing telephone connectivity. From the above facts it can be seen that there is no willful negligence from the part of any official/officer of BSNL as alleged by the complainant and hence the complaint may kindly dismissed with cost to these opposite parties.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 documents were marked. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and Ext.B1 marked and evidence closed. Ext.A1(1) and A1(2) are the copy of complaints given to the opposite party dated 30.05.2015. Ext.A1(3) is also the copy of complaint given to the opposite party dated 25.11.2014. Ext.A2(1) is the Acknowledgment card which shows that one letter is given to opposite party No.2. Ext.A2(2) and A2(3) are also the Acknowledgment cards addressed to opposite party No.1. Ext.A3 series are the Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment Card. Ext.A4 is the Reply to the Lawyer Notice by the opposite party No.2 stating that “rectifying the fault by replacing full length of cable is technically as well as financially not viable”. Ext.B1 is the letter given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant stating that “rectifying the fault in cable is not at all possible. Hence offered to provide WLL phone”.
5. On perusal of complaint, affidavit, version and documents we raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1 :- The allegation in the complaint is admitted by the opposite parties in their version stating that the service was maintained by the BSNL without any complaints arranging pole less facility. But during March 2014 the pathway excavated by the contract arranged for executing the work of water pipe line project for panchayath, so the under ground cables of BSNL was severely damaged. On inspection it was found that 500 meters length cable was damaged beyond repair and the petitioner was intimated same and all the facts are well known to him. Hence replacing such long span of cable for providing a connection is not presently viable.
7. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum reported that around 600 meter and 700 meters from the house of complainant two connection were existing now and commissioner concluded that around 450 meters underground cable is needed for reinstalling the telephone connection of the complainant. The documents produced by opposite party shows that “execution process was being processed to recover the compensation for damages caused to BSNL cable while carrying excavating trench work by you at Konnakkal – Manalvayal road of Padinjarathara Telephone Exchange area during March 1st week against the V.V. Raju As Rajachan Geroge, PWD Contractor, Vengathanam Hosue, Meenangady for Rs.1,50,000/-.
8. On over all evaluation the Forum found that the telephone connection of the complainant is already provided by the opposite parties. Thereafter due to cable fault, reconnection is not viable is not an excuse. More over the opposite parties and Commissioner reported that about 500 meters cable is sufficient to repair the fault and more over the opposite parties were taken steps to recover the damage and compensation caused to BSNL from the Contractor also. In the circumstances denial of the already provided connection is not fair from the side of opposite parties. Hence we found that not rectifying the fault of the connection of the complainant's telephone connection is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the Point No.1 found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, they are liable to reconnect the telephone connection and also liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant and complainant is entitled for the same. Hence the Point No.2 is found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to reconnect the telephone connection of the complainant and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum for whole the amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of October 2016.
Date of Filing:18.12.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Monsukutty. Agriculture
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Kesavan. V. G. Sub Divisional Officer, BSNL, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1(1). Copy of complaint given to opposite party. Dt:30.05.2015.
A1(2). Copy of complaint given to opposite party. Dt:30.05.2015.
A1(3). Copy of complaint given to opposite party. Dt:25.11.2014.
A2(1). Acknowledgment Card.
A2(2). Acknowledgment Card.
A2(3). Acknowledgment Card.
A3(1). Postal Receipt. Dt:29.07.2015.
A3(2). Acknowledgment Card.
A4. Copy of Reply to Lawyer Notice. Dt:21.08.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Copy of Letter. Dt:29.11.2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
