Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The  complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is subscriber of telephone/ internet connection No.0183-2263978 installed at Central Store, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Verka, Batala Road, Amritsar and used the service of Opposite Parties, thus come under the definition of consumer of the Act. Since February, 2016 the said connection remained out of order and in this regard, the complainant personally visited the office of Opposite Party No. 2 time and again and also filed numerous written complaints vide dated 27.4.2016, 10.5.2016, 20.5.2016, 23.5.2016 and 6.6.2016 with a request to remove the fault and restore the internet connection because these days without the internet the official work has not been done  and due to non running of internet huge loss has been caused to the complainant. In the month of August, 2016 the complainant received a reply vide letter dated 3.8.2016 from the office of Opposite Parties that the telephone was faulty due to U/G in cable & connection can not be restored, which clearly shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Due to non redressal of genuine request of the complainant, they suffered a great loss, inconvenience and harassment from the side of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to restore the telephone/ Internet connection No.0183-2263978 and refund the bills charged during the intervening from the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

b)      To pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs for harassment as well as mental agony.

c)       To pay adequate costs of litigation.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Opposite Party No.1 has been impleaded wrongly as over all the assets and liabilities has been made to BSNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000. On merits, it is averred that admitted the complainant is subscriber of the connection in question. It is also admitted that the written complaints were received from the complainant regarding the non working of the telephone connection in question, whereas the telephone connection in question was restored in the month of August, 2016, but the telephone connection in question remained faulty and could not be restored due to the damaging of the underground cables because of the BRTS project of the Punjab Government. But however,  the Accounts Officer (TRA), BSNL Amritsar  was issued a letter for providing rent rabate from 1.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 against the telephone connection in question which is subjected to non usage of the broadband data during this period by the complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit of Er.Manohar Singh Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1   to Ex.C16  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Alok Kaul , AGM (Legal) Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents OP1 to ex.OP22 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record and also perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant is subscriber of telephone/ internet connection No.0183-2263978 installed at Central Store, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Verka, Batala Road, Amritsar and used the service of Opposite Parties, thus come under the definition of consumer of the Act. Since February, 2016 the said connection remained out of order and in this regard, the complainant personally visited the office of Opposite Party No. 2 time and again and also filed numerous written complaints vide dated 27.4.2016, 10.5.2016, 20.5.2016, 23.5.2016 and 6.6.2016 with a request to remove the fault and restore the internet connection because these days without the internet the official work has not been done  and due to non running of internet huge loss has been caused to the complainant. In the month of August, 2016 the complainant received a reply vide letter dated 3.8.2016 from the office of Opposite Parties that the telephone was faulty due to U/G in cable & connection can not be restored, which clearly shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Due to non redressal of genuine request of the complainant, they suffered a great loss, inconvenience and harassment from the side of the Opposite Parties.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that admittedly,  the complainant is subscriber of the connection in question. It is also admitted that the written complaints were received from the complainant regarding the non working of the telephone connection in question, whereas the telephone connection in question was restored in the month of August, 2016, but the telephone connection in question remained faulty and could not be restored due to the damaging of the underground cables because of the BRTS project of the Punjab Government. But however,  the Accounts Officer (TRA), BSNL Amritsar  was issued a letter for providing rent rabate from 1.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 against the telephone connection in question which is subjected to non usage of the broadband data during this period by the complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.       It is not the denial of the case that the complainant is subscriber of the telephone/ internet connection bearing No. 0183-2263978 installed at Central Store, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Verka, Batala Road, Amritsar. It is also not denied by the Opposite Party  that written complaints were received from the complainant regarding the non working of the telephone connection in question, whereas the telephone connection in question was restored in the month of August, 2016, but the telephone connection in question remained faulty and could not be restored due to the damaging of the underground cables because of the BRTS project of the Punjab Government. But however, the Accounts Officer (TRA), BSNL Amritsar  was issued a letter for providing rent rabate from 1.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 against the telephone connection in question which is subjected to non usage of the broadband data during this period by the complainant.  In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint.  Hence, certainly, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties because  due to non functioning of the telephone/ internet connection of the complainant, the official work of the complainant suffered. The complainant has sought for refund the bills charged during the intervening period from the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. In our considered view, both the Opposite Parties  are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund rent rabate from 1.2.2016 to 31.10.2016 against the telephone connection in question which is subjected to non usage of the broadband data during this period by the complainant, besides restoration of the telephone/ internet connection in question, if still not restored. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has  to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Opposite Parties  are granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. Both the Opposite Parties  are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 08.06.2017.