Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

**Sidhant** · 08-31-2009, 12:18 PM

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027

S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/45

DATE OF FILING : 27.01.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 23.07.2009

APPELLANT

Md. Kalimullah Mallick

S/o. Late M.Mallick

Carrying on sole proprietorship business under the name

and style of M/s. Magnum Exports at 302, G.T.Road,

Shibpur, Dist. Howrah.

RESPONDENTS

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

having its office situated at Telephone Bhavan,

P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001.

2. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Having its head office situated at Telephone Bhavan,

P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001.

3. The Divisional Engineer, Internal,

Shibpur Exchange,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Having its office situated at Dr. P.K.Mukherjee Road

Mallick Fatak, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah-711 101.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. U.Jha, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. P.R.Bakshi, Ld. Advocate

: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 27.11.08 passed by the Howrah District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. 139 of 2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint in part without any order as to cost thereby directing the Ops to issue fresh bill for the month of September, 2007 in respect of Telephone No. 2688-0300 furnishing details of tariff and justifying the broad band usage charges amounting to Rs. 34,923.60. The Ld. District Forum further ordered that on issuing such bill as aforesaid and on payment of charges by the complainant the Ops shall reconnect the internet forthwith.

The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant took telephone connection with broad band facilities in connection with home plan with 1 GB free and that the complainant never exceeded the usage limit of the broad band. The complainant received a bill for September, 2007 amounting to Rs. 40,069/- wherein it appeared that the broad band charges for the month of August, 2007 was Rs. 34,923.60. According to the complainant, though the broad band facility was disconnected from June, 2007 to September, 2007, there was no justification on the part of the OP/BSNL to send a bill to the tune of Rs. 40,069/-. According to the complainant, the bill was raised without any justification and the same was fictitious and inflated having no basis at all and hence, the petition of complaint was filed for redressal.

The Ops contested the case by filing a written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the bill was never raised without any justification as claimed by the complainant. From the internal enquiry it has come to light that a huge amount of calls were made from a port other than the allotted port to the subscriber. Moreover, during the disputed period no complaint was registered at the instance of the complainant/customer for non-availability of the broad band facilities. It is also submitted on behalf of the Ops that the complainant alleged that the user ID and password was used by a third party, which is not permissible under the law and in this connection, the complainant is solely responsible for misuse of the broad band facilities given to him at the instance of the OPs and under such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the case has observed that the complainant was a Consumer under the Act and that the Ops are on the wrong footing for not supplying the details of the tariff and charges demanded by the complainant and under these grounds the Ops committed deficiency in service by not furnishing the details of the tariff justifying the broad band usage. At the same time, the Ld. District Forum has also observed that the complainant has totally failed to establish the fact that his internet connection was not available during the month of August, 2007 and that his internet was not used by using his own ID and password from other port and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in the manner mentioned above.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such finding of the Ld. District Forum the present Appeal has been preferred by the complainant.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

We have duly gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Appellant/Complainant has put up a case to the effect that he was a Consumer in respect of the telephone and broad band connection under the Respondents, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and that the Ops/Respondents without any justification raised a bill for the month of September, 2007 to the tune of Rs. 40,069/- which included broad band usage charges for the month of August, 2007 for Rs. 34,923.60. The complainant raised a bonafide dispute with a prayer for cancellation of the said bill, but with no effect and ultimately the complainant was compelled to file the petition of complaint for redressal including reconnection of his telephone and broad band connection.

The Ops/Respondents, on the other hand, has put up a case to the effect that in the absence of any dispute as regards disconnection of broad band facilities for the period as claimed by the complainant, there was no basis on the part of the complainant to raise a dispute for the bill meant for September, 2007, which, according to the Ops, was properly raised and depicted the actual usage of the complainant in respect of his telephone and broad band connection. In this connection, the Ops have also taken a plea to the effect that the broad band facilities used and utilized from a different port other than what was given to the complainant. For this misuse the complainant is only responsible and the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

On perusal of the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has adjudged the Appellant to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and has also opined that the Ops have committed deficiency in service by not furnishing the details of tariff justifying the broad band usage charges for the disputed period. In this connection, we also notice that the Ld. District Forum has directed the Ops to issue a fresh bill for the month of September, 2007 in respect of Telephone No. 2688 0300 with broad band facilities furnishing the details of tariff and justifying the broad band usage charges of Rs. 34,923.60 for the month of August, 2007. If that be the position, we find that definitely there is sufficient ground to hold that the complainant was quite justified in putting up a case in the form of petition of complaint wherein the complainant has unequivocally prayed for canceling the impugned bill for the month of August, 2007 along with a prayer to direct the Ops to appoint an arbitrator for settling the dispute by and between the complainant and the Ops regarding the impugned bill after cancelling the same. If that be the position, when it is an admitted position that there is a dispute as regards genuineness of the impugned bill, we think that the Ld. District Forum was not justified in directing the Ops to issue a fresh bill for the disputed period without canceling the same. In this connection, we further hold that once it is found that there is a bonafide dispute as regards the genuineness of the impugned bill as in the instant case, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to invoke the provisions of Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules keeping in mind the guidelines U/S 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The publication of Indian Telegraph Rules and Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act makes it clear that whenever there is a dispute as regards raising of bills as in the instant case, an average of previous six bills, which are not disputed, should be prepared and the said amount will be deposited by the consumer for immediate reconnection of his telephone line and broad band connection, which has already been disconnected by the Ops/Respondents. The provisions of Indian Telegraph Act also makes it incumbent upon the Ops to refer the dispute to a proper arbitrator or arbitration for resolving the dispute between the parties. In fact, we find that the complainant has prayed for such reference of the dispute in question to arbitration which the Ld. District Forum has overlooked. As regards user of the broad band facilities from a different port other than what was granted to the complainant/Appellant as claimed by the Ops, we find that in this connection there is much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant to the effect that there is no tangible and positive evidence in support of Respondents’ such plea that the user ID was divulged to a third party at the instance of the Appellant for misuse of the broad band connection which has resulted the disputed bill of heavy amount. Thus, considering the present Appeal in the light of above observation we are of considered opinion that there is sufficient merit in the present Appeal and the same should be allowed in the manner as discussed above. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The Complainant do get a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from the OPs. The impugned judgement is set aside. The Ops/Respondents are directed to compute an amount averaging six previous undisputed bills and to intimate the same to the Appellant, on deposit of which amount by the Appellant the connection would be restored within seven days from such deposit of average amount. Respondents/Ops are further directed to refer the disputed bills for arbitration in terms of provisions of Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act to competent authority towards resolution. The process of computation of the average amount, reconnection, reference to the arbitrator and payment of decretal amounts should be completed within a period of 45 (forty-five) days from the date of this judgement and order and on default the Respondents/Ops would be liable to pay cost for an amount of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per week for the period of default.

MEMBER MEMBER

**adv.sumit** · 10-08-2009, 05:59 PM

Shri Gurdyal Singh Panwar

… Complainant.

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others

… Opposite Parties

__________________________________________________ _____****

O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the telephone mobile bill No.16073044 dated 07.02.2008, for the period 07.01.2008 to 06.02.2008 amounting to Rs.904/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the telephone mobile to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record.

In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above term the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-08-2009, 06:03 PM

Shri Anup Aggarwal

… Complainant.

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others

… Opposite Parties

__________________________________________________ _____****

O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the telephone bill No.2808200734487 dated 28.08.2007 amounting to Rs.3005/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the telephone to such an extent as reflected in the bills aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bills, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.

The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above term the complaint is disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-10-2009, 09:29 AM

Capt.Amarjit Singh aged 58 years S/o Jagan Nath R/o Village Urapar, Tehsil Nawanshahr & District S.B.S. Nagar. ….Complainant.

Versus

1 The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; (BSNL), Jalandhar.

2 Dy. General Manager, TR, CTO complex, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Jalandhar.

3 The Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Nawanshahr Distt. SBS Nagar. …..Respondents

O R D E R

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant an Ex-Serviceman retired from Indian Army is the consumer of BSNL telephone No.(CKD)248309 and 249379. It is alleged that from January 2009 to February 2009 the telephone connection bearing Nos. CKD248309 and 249379 remained out of order for more than two months due to construction of main road at Village Urapar. The complainant could not use these telephones approximately for two months. No action on behalf of the Ops was taken during this period to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the complainant. Due to deficiency of service on behalf of the Ops the complainant’s sons one doctor and the other lawyer by profession have suffered professional/financial loss amounting to more than Rs.2 lacs.

Moreover one daughter of the complainant resided abroad could not be contacted due to non working of above said telephone numbers. Rather he had to spend more than Rs.20,000/- on international phone calls to his beloved daughter. It is alleged that on contact the Ops had been assuring him that they will not charge any bill for the period between January 2009 to February 2009 (two months). But to his utter surprise the complainant received the bill Rs.246/- dt.05.03.2009 for this period only and the same was duly deposited. It is further alleged that the complainant obtained another telephone number 249379 under Add-On Scheme in the month of August 2009 Under this scheme the complainant was assured of one ID Caller Set as an incentive an addition facility.

But the same has yet not been provided by the Ops. Further alleged that in the month of March 2009 Ops launched another scheme and published an advertisement in “Danik Bhaskar” dt.March 2009 with the promise that there is no need for registration fee; that even installation of Broad Band is free and that there is no requirement of depositing money as security for Broad Band connection in rural area and that unlimited usage of Broad Band/internet was free upto March 2009. Relying upon this advertisement the complainant got Broad Band installed on 21.03.2009 on request. It did not work for 3-4 days. Once again the complainant was taken back to see the bill dt.05.04.2009 for the period 01.03.2009 to 31.03.2009 claiming Rs.250/- as installation charges and Rs.500/- as deposit money for the same.

He was also surprised to find a note on the impugned bill dt. 05.04.2009, “Bill Numbers of un-billed amount 50320095753737 Rs.246/-” whereas the complainant had already paid the bill in question. It is therefore, pleaded that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.246/- of bill dt. 05.04.2009 and also be restrained from charging of Rs.250/- and Rs.500/- as installation charges and deposit money respectively. Further to direct the Ops to provide the ID Caller Set to the complainant. Finally it has been requested to burden the Ops with Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture and financial loss and also to subject the Ops with litigation expenses for being deficient in service..

2 In response to the notice the Ops has filed the written statement. Admittedly during the months of January and February 2009 telephone cables remained effected due to which the service of some telephones remained partially interrupted as the roads were completely dug. But the services never continuously remained failed. That the complainant never booked any written complaint in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant visited this office once in March 2009 and the telephone was immediately rectified. There was no excuse on the part of the Ops except road widening work. It is denied that the complainant had to spend any amount on international phones. In reply to para No.5 the Ops alleged that the complainant was requested to submit the claim of rent waiver of actual period as no official complaint of failure of telephone was available in the office. As such the complainant is not entitled to any such claim as there was widening of road and it was not within the control of the Ops. In reply to para No.6 it is alleged that I.D. telephone sets were not available at the time of installation and the ordinary set was given to the complainant that this set was replaced with I.D. Set lateron.

In reply to para No.7 it is submitted that regarding the bill dt.05.04.2009 of Broad Band etc. the parties first availed the facility of free trial of Board Band upto 31.03.2009 and further converted the same into newly launched rural area paln of Rs.99/- which was free from installation fee as well as security; as this scheme was not up dated in the computer the bill was issued as per existing plan which was immediately revised thereafter and that no bill is pending now. Admittedly, the complainant had problems with the Ops but the same have been solved allegedly.

3. In order to support his pleadings the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and one affidavit of Karmajit Singh Ralla Ex.C2/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, report of Paramjit Kaur Ralle wife of the complaint Ex.C-6, her appointment letters with the hospital Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

4. To rebut the complainant’s evidence learned counsel for Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of SDO BSNL Ex.R-1 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the arguments of ld counsel for the complainant Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate and Sh.A.K. Sareen, Advocate ld counsel for the Ops and gone through the entire data on record.

6. After due application of our mind to the relevant facts and circumstances we accept the arguments advanced by the ld counsel for the complainant in the light evidence placed on the record. The ld counsel for the Ops has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the contentions submitted in Ex.R-1 (affidavit) para 7- as no revised bill has been placed on record in the absence of such an evidence the complainant surely must have been suffering from mental stress. Besides this the Ops have failed to produce any receipt to prove their arguments given in para 6 of Ex.R-1 that first set for add-on number i.e.249379 was replaced with the I.D. Set. In the absence of any solid evidence were are unable to accept the contents of affidavit Ex.R-1 of the Ops. Once the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proving that he did not receive the I.D. Set till date by way of his affidavit Ex.C-1 the burden shifts to the Op Department to establish that there was no deficiency in service on their part & the Ops have failed to discharge their liability.

7. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court & National Commission’s observations reported in the matter of “Har kishan Lal Kamboj Vs. G.M. Telephones, Ferozepur,, 2003(2) CLT410 : 2003(1) CPJ 88 : 2003 (3) CPR 241 (NC) : Vol. 1 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 451 wherein the Telephone service – Telephone remaining dead for 37 days – Stand of the department that it was on account of conversation of telephone exchange – Petitioner lodged as many as 10 complaints – Department should have atleast informed the subscribers – Clear case of deficiency in service,” we are unable to appreciate the Ops stand taken in Para 5 of the written statement as well as of the affidavit R1 the main cause of the complaint was widening of road which was not within the control of the Ops hence the complainant is not justified in filing of any case for any claim.

8. In view of the above discussion we find the Ops deficient in service therefore we are constrained to allow the complaint. The Ops are definitely deficient in service admittedly for failure to provide continuous and uninterrupted telephonic service to the complainant during the months of January and February 2009 therefore the demand of Rs.246/- claimed vide bill dt.24.03.2009 is quashed. The Ops are also directed to provide the complainant with an I.D. Set as undertaken at the time of allotment of Add-On Number within a month; further to revise the bill dt. 05.04.2009 by excluding the amounts for installation and Broad Band Charges and the amount of Rs.256/- claimed for ‘bill number is of unbilled amount’ as the same has already been deposited as his evident from the receipt No.13/21912 on Ex.C-1. (The amount already quashed by this order). The Ops are further awarded with compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment & mental stress to the complainant.

9. The Ops also burdened with litigation expenses to the complainant.

10. The compliance of this order shall be made within one month by the Ops from the receipt of the copy of this order.

11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

12. File be consigned to the record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-10-2009, 10:23 AM

Amrik Singh son of Sh. Harnam Singh, resident of 75, New Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab, 141002.

…..Complainant.

Versus

1- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Regd. Office, Hariesh Chander Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 through its Chief Manager Director/Chairman.

2- The General Manager, Telecom, B.S.N.L., Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana-141002.

…..Opposite parties.

O R D E R

1- In this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant alleges that telephone no.2773950 installed at his residence till 25 years, was issued arbitrary and illegal bills dated 1.1.2008 and 31.3.2008 for Rs.2152/- and Rs.2620/- respectively. Sought directions to opposite party to charge him on average basis and refund excess amount received, also to set aside demand of Rs.1579/- raised vide notice dated 13.8.2008 by the opposite party, to refund his security amount of Rs.8000/- and award compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

2- Opposite party have taken objection that complaint is not maintainable. Have also controverted allegations of the complainant on merit.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Though case is fixed for arguments, but on behalf of opposite party, preliminary objection was raised qua maintainability of the complaint, on the ground that it is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. In support, he referred us to General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By that order, Hon’ble Apex Court laid that dispute qua non payment of telephone bills or disconnection thereof, is not a consumer dispute, in view of provision of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. That provision deals with arbitration of disputes. Vide that clause, any dispute pertaining to telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, between the telegraph authority and the person, to whom telephone has been provided, shall be determined by the arbitrator.

5- In view of aforesaid law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we conclude that have no jurisdiction, to decide this dispute, not being consumer dispute. As such, complaint is not maintainable in the Fora. Complainant may approach opposite party u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, for determination of the dispute by an arbitrator. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-10-2009, 10:28 AM

Vinod Kumar Bansal son of Shri Om parkash Bansal, C/o.Gangotari Rubber Limited, VPO Jandiali, near Kohara Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. …..Complainant.

Versus

1- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through its General Manager.

2- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, NIB & Broadband Section, Transport Nagar, Telephone Exchange, Ludhiana through SDE, Node Incharge.

…..Opposite parties.

O R D E R

File taken up today, as Punjab Government on 07.09.2009 had declared holiday on the sad demise of Sh.H.S.Brar, Ex.CM of Punjab. Complainant tendered and closed evidence.

At this stage, ld.counsel for the OP, qua maintainability took objections before the Consumer Fora, referring us to General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By that order, Hon’ble Apex Court laid that dispute qua non payment of telephone bills or disconnection thereof, is not a consumer dispute, in view of provision of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. That provision deals with arbitration of disputes. Vide that clause, any dispute pertaining to telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, between the telegraph authority and the person, to whom telephone has been provided, shall be determined by the arbitrator.

2. In this instant case, this complaint is not maintainable because complainant have alleged and complained of excess charge bill dated 05.04.2008 issued by opposite party for Rs.6636/- including broadband charges qua his telephone connection No. 2843633. As this dispute is for excess bill of the telephone connection and the same in view of the aforesaid authority is not a consumer dispute. Hence, we are not competent to decide the same. Complaint as such, not maintainable in the Fora. Complainant may seek his remedy by approaching opposite party u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, for determination of the dispute by an arbitrator. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-13-2009, 02:21 PM

Krishan Sharma son of late Sh. Balraj Krishan, aged about 28 years, r/o 125, NR Krishna Chowk, New Kundan Puri, Duggal PCO Street, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

…..Complainant.

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ludhiana, Telecommunication District, Ludhiana

through its General Manager.

…..Opposite party.

O R D E R

1- Complainant resident of house no.125, NR Krishna Chowk, New Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, by depositing a sum of Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 31.1.2008 with opposite party, applied for a new telephone connection. Subsequently, opposite party issued demand notice no.N529682 dated 31.1.2008 which demand was complied by the complainant. But opposite party even thereafter, failed to install telephone connection at his residence, despite his repeated visits and demands. Consequently, served legal notice dated 23.5.2008 to which they did not bother, nor released the connection. Such act on part of opposite party, claimed amounting to deficiency in services and sought directions by filing the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to release new telephone connection and in addition, pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation expenses Rs.5500/-.

2- Opposite party in reply admitted applying for connection and depositing security of Rs.500/-by the complainant on 31.1.2008. Issuance of demand notice is also not denied. But it is averred that in that premises for which, complainant had applied for new telephone connection to be installed, telephone no.2413270 in the name of uncle of the complainant Sh. Sangram Sharma existed. That telephone in the name of Sh. Sangram Sharma worked on that very premises between 22.12.2004 to 6.3.2006. That connection was disconnected due to non payment of arrears of Rs.1564/-. Uncle of the complainant was a defaulter.

In view of rules of the Ministry of Telecommunication and office order dated 9.7.1999, new telephone connection can not be installed, if any amount is due pertaining to any telephone in the name of applicant or his relative, installed in the same premises in which the telephone is to be installed. Complainant had also applied for new telephone connection in the same premises House No. B-1-125, New Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, where his uncle Sh. Sangram Singh had taken telephone which was disconnected due to non payment. Therefore, complainant was not entitled to have telephone connection in that very premises. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Opposite party to prove their defence that complainant applied for new telephone connection in the same premises, where his uncle Sh. Sangram Sharma had earlier taken telephone, which was disconnected due to non payment, has placed on record, application Ex.R1 of the complainant and Ex.R4 of his uncle Sh. Sangram Sharma. As per particulars in both these applications, house number and address of the building is the same. As per statement Ex.R6 and Ex.R7, said uncle of the complainant Sh. Sangram Sharma owed a sum of Rs.497/- and Rs.1067/- respectively for telephone no.2413270.

5- Denial of connection to the complainant is based upon Para-43 of the Telecom Manual, as reproduced in office order Ex.R8 of the Ministry of Communication. The decision of the Telecom Commission mentioned in the letter, is as follows:-

“A new telephone connection or telex connection may be refused to any relative or any associate living on or working from the same premises as that of a defaulting telephone subscriber. The new connection may, however, be refused to the applicant if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues along with penalty, as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority”.

6- It is on the strength of aforesaid decision that release of new telephone connection to the complainant, was refused, as his uncle in the same premises, had taken telephone and he was a defaulter, so under those guidelines, was not entitled for new connection.

7- Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in case reported as 2004 (1) CPC 245 titled as Gyarsi Devi Vs. Union of India in view of rule 416 of India Telegraphs Rules has also held that if there was connection granted to a person residing in the same premises against which dues are outstanding, complainant is not entitled for release of a new telephone connection.

8. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case Rahul Vashist Vs. The Union of India 1996 (2) Civil Court Cases 156 (P& H) has held that under Rule 416 of Telegraph Rules can only be rejected on the ground that there are any telephone dues outstanding in the name of the applicant. As this rule 416 of Telegraph Rules as interpreted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which we are bound to follow, it is evident that rule 416 of Telegraph Rules can only be applied by refusing release of telephone connection, if applicant himself owes some telephone dues to the Department. Therefore, with due respect to Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, we venture to say that we would follow the interpretation given by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

9. Even otherwise, before refusing to install telephone connection in the premises of the complainant, opposite party by virtue of rule 416 of Telegraph Rules, was required to serve 7 days notice in writing to the complainant and after considering representation, if any, to take action. But in the instant case, no notice of any sort was given to the complainant. Rather, they after receipt of Rs.500/- refused to install the telephone at his residence.

10. In view of law as interpreted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, office order Ex.R8 shelter of which is taken by opposite party, would not absolve them towards the complainant, who became prospective consumer by making application and depositing security with the opposite party, which he deposited on their demand.

11- It is also argued on behalf of opposite party that in view of the decision of Civil Appeal no.7687 of 2004 titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, complaint is not maintainable in this Fora. But with due respect, we venture to say that authority pertains to non payment of telephone bills and disconnection of telephone due to such non payment. It was such type of disputes which were required to be referred to arbitration. Whereas, in the instant case, complainant has to be taken as a consumer, as he applied for new connection, furnished security and connection was denied for certain reasons which are not legal and valid, in view of the law discussed above.

12- Therefore, we allow the complaint and consequently direct opposite party, to release and install new telephone connection in the house of the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of copy of order. For deficiency in service, ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with litigation expenses Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-14-2009, 05:57 PM

Capt.Amarjit Singh aged 58 years S/o Jagan Nath R/o Village Urapar, Tehsil Nawanshahr & District S.B.S. Nagar. ….Complainant.

Versus

1 The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; (BSNL), Jalandhar.

2 Dy. General Manager, TR, CTO complex, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Jalandhar.

3 The Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Nawanshahr Distt. SBS Nagar. …..Respondents

O R D E R

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant an Ex-Serviceman retired from Indian Army is the consumer of BSNL telephone No.(CKD)248309 and 249379. It is alleged that from January 2009 to February 2009 the telephone connection bearing Nos. CKD248309 and 249379 remained out of order for more than two months due to construction of main road at Village Urapar. The complainant could not use these telephones approximately for two months.

No action on behalf of the Ops was taken during this period to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the complainant. Due to deficiency of service on behalf of the Ops the complainant’s sons one doctor and the other lawyer by profession have suffered professional/financial loss amounting to more than Rs.2 lacs. Moreover one daughter of the complainant resided abroad could not be contacted due to non working of above said telephone numbers. Rather he had to spend more than Rs.20,000/- on international phone calls to his beloved daughter. It is alleged that on contact the Ops had been assuring him that they will not charge any bill for the period between January 2009 to February 2009 (two months). But to his utter surprise the complainant received the bill Rs.246/- dt.05.03.2009 for this period only and the same was duly deposited.

It is further alleged that the complainant obtained another telephone number 249379 under Add-On Scheme in the month of August 2009 Under this scheme the complainant was assured of one ID Caller Set as an incentive an addition facility. But the same has yet not been provided by the Ops. Further alleged that in the month of March 2009 Ops launched another scheme and published an advertisement in “Danik Bhaskar” dt.March 2009 with the promise that there is no need for registration fee; that even installation of Broad Band is free and that there is no requirement of depositing money as security for Broad Band connection in rural area and that unlimited usage of Broad Band/internet was free upto March 2009. Relying upon this advertisement the complainant got Broad Band installed on 21.03.2009 on request.

It did not work for 3-4 days. Once again the complainant was taken back to see the bill dt.05.04.2009 for the period 01.03.2009 to 31.03.2009 claiming Rs.250/- as installation charges and Rs.500/- as deposit money for the same. He was also surprised to find a note on the impugned bill dt. 05.04.2009, “Bill Numbers of un-billed amount 50320095753737 Rs.246/-” whereas the complainant had already paid the bill in question. It is therefore, pleaded that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.246/- of bill dt. 05.04.2009 and also be restrained from charging of Rs.250/- and Rs.500/- as installation charges and deposit money respectively. Further to direct the Ops to provide the ID Caller Set to the complainant. Finally it has been requested to burden the Ops with Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture and financial loss and also to subject the Ops with litigation expenses for being deficient in service..

2 In response to the notice the Ops has filed the written statement. Admittedly during the months of January and February 2009 telephone cables remained effected due to which the service of some telephones remained partially interrupted as the roads were completely dug. But the services never continuously remained failed. That the complainant never booked any written complaint in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant visited this office once in March 2009 and the telephone was immediately rectified. There was no excuse on the part of the Ops except road widening work. It is denied that the complainant had to spend any amount on international phones. In reply to para No.5 the Ops alleged that the complainant was requested to submit the claim of rent waiver of actual period as no official complaint of failure of telephone was available in the office. As such the complainant is not entitled to any such claim as there was widening of road and it was not within the control of the Ops.

In reply to para No.6 it is alleged that I.D. telephone sets were not available at the time of installation and the ordinary set was given to the complainant that this set was replaced with I.D. Set lateron. In reply to para No.7 it is submitted that regarding the bill dt.05.04.2009 of Broad Band etc. the parties first availed the facility of free trial of Board Band upto 31.03.2009 and further converted the same into newly launched rural area paln of Rs.99/- which was free from installation fee as well as security; as this scheme was not up dated in the computer the bill was issued as per existing plan which was immediately revised thereafter and that no bill is pending now. Admittedly, the complainant had problems with the Ops but the same have been solved allegedly.

3. In order to support his pleadings the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and one affidavit of Karmajit Singh Ralla Ex.C2/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, report of Paramjit Kaur Ralle wife of the complaint Ex.C-6, her appointment letters with the hospital Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

4. To rebut the complainant’s evidence learned counsel for Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of SDO BSNL Ex.R-1 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the arguments of ld counsel for the complainant Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate and Sh.A.K. Sareen, Advocate ld counsel for the Ops and gone through the entire data on record.

6. After due application of our mind to the relevant facts and circumstances we accept the arguments advanced by the ld counsel for the complainant in the light evidence placed on the record. The ld counsel for the Ops has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the contentions submitted in Ex.R-1 (affidavit) para 7- as no revised bill has been placed on record in the absence of such an evidence the complainant surely must have been suffering from mental stress. Besides this the Ops have failed to produce any receipt to prove their arguments given in para 6 of Ex.R-1 that first set for add-on number i.e.249379 was replaced with the I.D. Set. In the absence of any solid evidence were are unable to accept the contents of affidavit Ex.R-1 of the Ops. Once the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proving that he did not receive the I.D. Set till date by way of his affidavit Ex.C-1 the burden shifts to the Op Department to establish that there was no deficiency in service on their part & the Ops have failed to discharge their liability.

7. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court & National Commission’s observations reported in the matter of “Har kishan Lal Kamboj Vs. G.M. Telephones, Ferozepur,, 2003(2) CLT410 : 2003(1) CPJ 88 : 2003 (3) CPR 241 (NC) : Vol. 1 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 451 wherein the Telephone service – Telephone remaining dead for 37 days – Stand of the department that it was on account of conversation of telephone exchange – Petitioner lodged as many as 10 complaints – Department should have atleast informed the subscribers – Clear case of deficiency in service,” we are unable to appreciate the Ops stand taken in Para 5 of the written statement as well as of the affidavit R1 the main cause of the complaint was widening of road which was not within the control of the Ops hence the complainant is not justified in filing of any case for any claim.

8. In view of the above discussion we find the Ops deficient in service therefore we are constrained to allow the complaint. The Ops are definitely deficient in service admittedly for failure to provide continuous and uninterrupted telephonic service to the complainant during the months of January and February 2009 therefore the demand of Rs.246/- claimed vide bill dt.24.03.2009 is quashed. The Ops are also directed to provide the complainant with an I.D. Set as undertaken at the time of allotment of Add-On Number within a month; further to revise the bill dt. 05.04.2009 by excluding the amounts for installation and Broad Band Charges and the amount of Rs.256/- claimed for ‘bill number is of unbilled amount’ as the same has already been deposited as his evident from the receipt No.13/21912 on Ex.C-1. (The amount already quashed by this order). The Ops are further awarded with compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment & mental stress to the complainant.

9. The Ops also burdened with litigation expenses to the complainant.

10. The compliance of this order shall be made within one month by the Ops from the receipt of the copy of this order.

11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

12. File be consigned to the record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-15-2009, 06:07 PM

Shri Jai Singh Mehta

R/O Village Baghi, P.O. Chirgaon,

Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP.

…. Complainant.

Versus

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

S.D.A. Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9

Through its General Manager.

2. The S.D.O. Telephones,

BSNL, Rohroo, Tehskil Rohroo,

District Shimla, H.P.

3. The Lineman, Village Baghi, Chirgaon Telephone Exchange, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.

…Opposite Parties

O R D E R:

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of telephone bearing No.277251, which is installed at his aforesaid native village. It is averred that the aforesaid telephone connection provided by the OPs-BSNL seldom remains in order and the same remains non-functional for months together without any attempt on the part of the OPs to find out the defect and make attempts to rectify the same and the telephone connection went completely out of order in August, 2004, whereas, the OPs continued to issue regular bills, which was regularly paid by him without availing the telephone facility.

The complainant further proceeded to aver that continuous complaints for the rectification of the telephone have fallen on deaf ears and no remedial action has been initiated by the OPs. The legal notice dated 12.03.2005 issued to the OPs, also fell on dear ears. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-BSNL and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in her favour.

2. The OPs-BSNL, in its written version to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint in view of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, lack of cause of action and there being no deficiency in service. On merits, it is contended that the telephone of the complainant has been functioning properly throughout as is clear from the calling pattern of the said telephone from 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2005. The complainant did not pay the telephone bills for the year 2005 and he is defaulter of Rs.1,692/-. It is further contended that since the telephone is functioning properly as is evident from the usage pattern, hence allegations regarding non-functioning of the telephone connection is false. As such, there being no deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs-BSNL, the complaint is sought to be dismissed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the case meticulously.

4. The complainant is aggrieved by the act of the OPs not only in disconnecting his telephone connection installed in his premises, but, is also seeking a direction from this Forum that the bills whose purported non-payment resulted in OPs disconnecting the telephone connection, being untenable, be quashed and set aside.

5. The complainant avers, that, though, he, had not been using the telephone connection installed at his premises by the OPs-BSNL, yet, he was billed by the OPs-BSNL which bills, as issued by the OPs-BSNL, are, hence, contended to be not lawful. The OPs-BSNL depended upon Annexure R-1, in, putting forth the contention before us that the telephone installed at the premises of the complainant had been used by the complainant, as such, the bills are in order. Annexure R-1, is, the detail of the metered calls made from the telephone installed in the premises of the complainant.

Annexure R-1 has been signed by the S.D.E. (Legal), in the office of the GMTD, Shimla whereas, the telephone connection provided to the complainant by the OPs-BSNL is installed, at, Chirgaon which does not fall within the jurisdiction of S.D.E.(Legal) who has issued Annexure R-1 nor has the signatory of Annexure R-1 sworn an affidavit before this forum that the details of the metered calls as purportedly made from the telephone connection provided by the OPs-BSNL was prepared by him only after calling from the details from the SDO of the OPs-BSNL, enjoying, jurisdiction over the area where the telephone connection, is, provided to the complainant.

6. Since, for lack of the above affidavit sworn by the signatory of the Annexure R-1, as also, when the appropriate functionary to submit before, us, the details of the metered calls as made by the complainant from his telephone connection, was, the SDO enjoying jurisdiction over the area where the telephone connection was provided by the OPs-BSNL to the complainant. With the appropriate functionary having not filed the details before us, hence, for the reasons aforesaid we do not give any credence to Annexure R-1. Consequently, while imputing untruthfulness to Annexure R-1, we are constrained to accord credibility to the averments contained in the complaint qua the fact of non-user by the complainant of the facility of the telephone connection provided at his premises by the OPs-BSNL.

Obviously, then the complainant could not have been billed. Resultantly, the action of the OPs-BSNL in disconnecting the telephone connection provided at the premises of the complainant for the purported reason for non-payment of the bills, by him, is unlawful.

7. As a sequel of the above, we allow this complaint. The OPs-BSNL, through its General Manager is directed to restore the telephone bearing No.277251 of the complainant within a period of fifteen days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order and make it functional and operational, henceforth. They are also directed to maintain the telephone line and inspect the same quarterly to ensure its workability. The telephone bills issued after August, 2004 till the telephone is made functional and operational, is quashed and set aside.

In addition to this, the OPs-BSNL, is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.2500/- payable to the complainant by the OPs-BSNL. These payments shall be made, to the complainant by the OPs-BSNL, within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this, the complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion be consigned to record room.

**adv.sumit** · 10-20-2009, 06:22 PM

Capt.Amarjit Singh aged 58 years S/o Jagan Nath R/o Village Urapar, Tehsil Nawanshahr & District S.B.S. Nagar. ….Complainant.

Versus

1 The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; (BSNL), Jalandhar.

2 Dy. General Manager, TR, CTO complex, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Jalandhar.

3 The Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Nawanshahr Distt. SBS Nagar. …..Respondents

O R D E R

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant an Ex-Serviceman retired from Indian Army is the consumer of BSNL telephone No.(CKD)248309 and 249379. It is alleged that from January 2009 to February 2009 the telephone connection bearing Nos. CKD248309 and 249379 remained out of order for more than two months due to construction of main road at Village Urapar. The complainant could not use these telephones approximately for two months.

No action on behalf of the Ops was taken during this period to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the complainant. Due to deficiency of service on behalf of the Ops the complainant’s sons one doctor and the other lawyer by profession have suffered professional/financial loss amounting to more than Rs.2 lacs. Moreover one daughter of the complainant resided abroad could not be contacted due to non working of above said telephone numbers. Rather he had to spend more than Rs.20,000/- on international phone calls to his beloved daughter. It is alleged that on contact the Ops had been assuring him that they will not charge any bill for the period between January 2009 to February 2009 (two months). But to his utter surprise the complainant received the bill Rs.246/- dt.05.03.2009 for this period only and the same was duly deposited.

It is further alleged that the complainant obtained another telephone number 249379 under Add-On Scheme in the month of August 2009 Under this scheme the complainant was assured of one ID Caller Set as an incentive an addition facility. But the same has yet not been provided by the Ops. Further alleged that in the month of March 2009 Ops launched another scheme and published an advertisement in “Danik Bhaskar” dt.March 2009 with the promise that there is no need for registration fee; that even installation of Broad Band is free and that there is no requirement of depositing money as security for Broad Band connection in rural area and that unlimited usage of Broad Band/internet was free upto March 2009. Relying upon this advertisement the complainant got Broad Band installed on 21.03.2009 on request.

It did not work for 3-4 days. Once again the complainant was taken back to see the bill dt.05.04.2009 for the period 01.03.2009 to 31.03.2009 claiming Rs.250/- as installation charges and Rs.500/- as deposit money for the same. He was also surprised to find a note on the impugned bill dt. 05.04.2009, “Bill Numbers of un-billed amount 50320095753737 Rs.246/-” whereas the complainant had already paid the bill in question. It is therefore, pleaded that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.246/- of bill dt. 05.04.2009 and also be restrained from charging of Rs.250/- and Rs.500/- as installation charges and deposit money respectively. Further to direct the Ops to provide the ID Caller Set to the complainant. Finally it has been requested to burden the Ops with Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture and financial loss and also to subject the Ops with litigation expenses for being deficient in service..

2 In response to the notice the Ops has filed the written statement. Admittedly during the months of January and February 2009 telephone cables remained effected due to which the service of some telephones remained partially interrupted as the roads were completely dug. But the services never continuously remained failed. That the complainant never booked any written complaint in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant visited this office once in March 2009 and the telephone was immediately rectified. There was no excuse on the part of the Ops except road widening work. It is denied that the complainant had to spend any amount on international phones. In reply to para No.5 the Ops alleged that the complainant was requested to submit the claim of rent waiver of actual period as no official complaint of failure of telephone was available in the office. As such the complainant is not entitled to any such claim as there was widening of road and it was not within the control of the Ops.

In reply to para No.6 it is alleged that I.D. telephone sets were not available at the time of installation and the ordinary set was given to the complainant that this set was replaced with I.D. Set lateron. In reply to para No.7 it is submitted that regarding the bill dt.05.04.2009 of Broad Band etc. the parties first availed the facility of free trial of Board Band upto 31.03.2009 and further converted the same into newly launched rural area paln of Rs.99/- which was free from installation fee as well as security; as this scheme was not up dated in the computer the bill was issued as per existing plan which was immediately revised thereafter and that no bill is pending now. Admittedly, the complainant had problems with the Ops but the same have been solved allegedly.

3. In order to support his pleadings the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and one affidavit of Karmajit Singh Ralla Ex.C2/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, report of Paramjit Kaur Ralle wife of the complaint Ex.C-6, her appointment letters with the hospital Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

4. To rebut the complainant’s evidence learned counsel for Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of SDO BSNL Ex.R-1 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the arguments of ld counsel for the complainant Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate and Sh.A.K. Sareen, Advocate ld counsel for the Ops and gone through the entire data on record.

6. After due application of our mind to the relevant facts and circumstances we accept the arguments advanced by the ld counsel for the complainant in the light evidence placed on the record. The ld counsel for the Ops has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the contentions submitted in Ex.R-1 (affidavit) para 7- as no revised bill has been placed on record in the absence of such an evidence the complainant surely must have been suffering from mental stress.

Besides this the Ops have failed to produce any receipt to prove their arguments given in para 6 of Ex.R-1 that first set for add-on number i.e.249379 was replaced with the I.D. Set. In the absence of any solid evidence were are unable to accept the contents of affidavit Ex.R-1 of the Ops. Once the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proving that he did not receive the I.D. Set till date by way of his affidavit Ex.C-1 the burden shifts to the Op Department to establish that there was no deficiency in service on their part & the Ops have failed to discharge their liability.

7. In view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court & National Commission’s observations reported in the matter of “Har kishan Lal Kamboj Vs. G.M. Telephones, Ferozepur,, 2003(2) CLT410 : 2003(1) CPJ 88 : 2003 (3) CPR 241 (NC) : Vol. 1 SC & NC Consumer Law Cases 451 wherein the Telephone service – Telephone remaining dead for 37 days – Stand of the department that it was on account of conversation of telephone exchange – Petitioner lodged as many as 10 complaints – Department should have atleast informed the subscribers – Clear case of deficiency in service,” we are unable to appreciate the Ops stand taken in Para 5 of the written statement as well as of the affidavit R1 the main cause of the complaint was widening of road which was not within the control of the Ops hence the complainant is not justified in filing of any case for any claim.

8. In view of the above discussion we find the Ops deficient in service therefore we are constrained to allow the complaint. The Ops are definitely deficient in service admittedly for failure to provide continuous and uninterrupted telephonic service to the complainant during the months of January and February 2009 therefore the demand of Rs.246/- claimed vide bill dt.24.03.2009 is quashed. The Ops are also directed to provide the complainant with an I.D. Set as undertaken at the time of allotment of Add-On Number within a month; further to revise the bill dt. 05.04.2009 by excluding the amounts for installation and Broad Band Charges and the amount of Rs.256/- claimed for ‘bill number is of unbilled amount’ as the same has already been deposited as his evident from the receipt No.13/21912 on Ex.C-1. (The amount already quashed by this order). The Ops are further awarded with compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment & mental stress to the complainant.

**adv.sumit** · 10-20-2009, 06:47 PM

Vinod Kumar Bansal son of Shri Om parkash Bansal, C/o.Gangotari Rubber Limited, VPO Jandiali, near Kohara Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. …..Complainant.

Versus

1- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through its General Manager.

2- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, NIB & Broadband Section, Transport Nagar, Telephone Exchange, Ludhiana through SDE, Node Incharge.

…..Opposite parties.

O R D E R

File taken up today, as Punjab Government on 07.09.2009 had declared holiday on the sad demise of Sh.H.S.Brar, Ex.CM of Punjab. Complainant tendered and closed evidence.

At this stage, ld.counsel for the OP, qua maintainability took objections before the Consumer Fora, referring us to General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By that order, Hon’ble Apex Court laid that dispute qua non payment of telephone bills or disconnection thereof, is not a consumer dispute, in view of provision of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. That provision deals with arbitration of disputes. Vide that clause, any dispute pertaining to telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, between the telegraph authority and the person, to whom telephone has been provided, shall be determined by the arbitrator.

**adv.sumit** · 10-23-2009, 05:11 PM

Shri Pawan Kumar Singal

… Complainant.

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Through its General Manager and another

… Opposite Parties

O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the telephone bill dated 07.04.2007, for the period 07.03.2007 to 06.04.2007, amounting to Rs.6775/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the telephone to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid, as also his previous consumption trend was very normal. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bills, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered calls of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such calls shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.

The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bills aforesaid are set aside and quashed. With these observations, the complaint is finally disposed of. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

**Sidhant** · 10-29-2009, 07:24 PM

Krishan Sharma son of late Sh. Balraj Krishan, aged about 28 years, r/o 125, NR Krishna Chowk, New Kundan Puri, Duggal PCO Street, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

…..Complainant.

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ludhiana, Telecommunication District, Ludhiana

through its General Manager.

…..Opposite party.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant resident of house no.125, NR Krishna Chowk, New Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, by depositing a sum of Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 31.1.2008 with opposite party, applied for a new telephone connection. Subsequently, opposite party issued demand notice no.N529682 dated 31.1.2008 which demand was complied by the complainant. But opposite party even thereafter, failed to install telephone connection at his residence, despite his repeated visits and demands. Consequently, served legal notice dated 23.5.2008 to which they did not bother, nor released the connection. Such act on part of opposite party, claimed amounting to deficiency in services and sought directions by filing the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to release new telephone connection and in addition, pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation expenses Rs.5500/-.

2- Opposite party in reply admitted applying for connection and depositing security of Rs.500/-by the complainant on 31.1.2008. Issuance of demand notice is also not denied. But it is averred that in that premises for which, complainant had applied for new telephone connection to be installed, telephone no.2413270 in the name of uncle of the complainant Sh. Sangram Sharma existed. That telephone in the name of Sh. Sangram Sharma worked on that very premises between 22.12.2004 to 6.3.2006. That connection was disconnected due to non payment of arrears of Rs.1564/-.

Uncle of the complainant was a defaulter. In view of rules of the Ministry of Telecommunication and office order dated 9.7.1999, new telephone connection can not be installed, if any amount is due pertaining to any telephone in the name of applicant or his relative, installed in the same premises in which the telephone is to be installed. Complainant had also applied for new telephone connection in the same premises House No. B-1-125, New Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, where his uncle Sh. Sangram Singh had taken telephone which was disconnected due to non payment. Therefore, complainant was not entitled to have telephone connection in that very premises. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Opposite party to prove their defence that complainant applied for new telephone connection in the same premises, where his uncle Sh. Sangram Sharma had earlier taken telephone, which was disconnected due to non payment, has placed on record, application Ex.R1 of the complainant and Ex.R4 of his uncle Sh. Sangram Sharma. As per particulars in both these applications, house number and address of the building is the same. As per statement Ex.R6 and Ex.R7, said uncle of the complainant Sh. Sangram Sharma owed a sum of Rs.497/- and Rs.1067/- respectively for telephone no.2413270.

5- Denial of connection to the complainant is based upon Para-43 of the Telecom Manual, as reproduced in office order Ex.R8 of the Ministry of Communication. The decision of the Telecom Commission mentioned in the letter, is as follows:-

“A new telephone connection or telex connection may be refused to any relative or any associate living on or working from the same premises as that of a defaulting telephone subscriber. The new connection may, however, be refused to the applicant if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues along with penalty, as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority”.

6- It is on the strength of aforesaid decision that release of new telephone connection to the complainant, was refused, as his uncle in the same premises, had taken telephone and he was a defaulter, so under those guidelines, was not entitled for new connection.

7- Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in case reported as 2004 (1) CPC 245 titled as Gyarsi Devi Vs. Union of India in view of rule 416 of India Telegraphs Rules has also held that if there was connection granted to a person residing in the same premises against which dues are outstanding, complainant is not entitled for release of a new telephone connection.

8. However, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case Rahul Vashist Vs. The Union of India 1996 (2) Civil Court Cases 156 (P& H) has held that under Rule 416 of Telegraph Rules can only be rejected on the ground that there are any telephone dues outstanding in the name of the applicant. As this rule 416 of Telegraph Rules as interpreted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which we are bound to follow, it is evident that rule 416 of Telegraph Rules can only be applied by refusing release of telephone connection, if applicant himself owes some telephone dues to the Department. Therefore, with due respect to Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, we venture to say that we would follow the interpretation given by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

9. Even otherwise, before refusing to install telephone connection in the premises of the complainant, opposite party by virtue of rule 416 of Telegraph Rules, was required to serve 7 days notice in writing to the complainant and after considering representation, if any, to take action. But in the instant case, no notice of any sort was given to the complainant. Rather, they after receipt of Rs.500/- refused to install the telephone at his residence.

10. In view of law as interpreted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, office order Ex.R8 shelter of which is taken by opposite party, would not absolve them towards the complainant, who became prospective consumer by making application and depositing security with the opposite party, which he deposited on their demand.

11- It is also argued on behalf of opposite party that in view of the decision of Civil Appeal no.7687 of 2004 titled as General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., decided on 1.9.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, complaint is not maintainable in this Fora. But with due respect, we venture to say that authority pertains to non payment of telephone bills and disconnection of telephone due to such non payment. It was such type of disputes which were required to be referred to arbitration. Whereas, in the instant case, complainant has to be taken as a consumer, as he applied for new connection, furnished security and connection was denied for certain reasons which are not legal and valid, in view of the law discussed above.

12- Therefore, we allow the complaint and consequently direct opposite party, to release and install new telephone connection in the house of the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of copy of order. For deficiency in service, ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with litigation expenses Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge.