State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/157



DATE OF FILING : 24.04.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 13.07.2009


APPELLANTS



Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Represented by the General Manager, Telecom,

Suri, District –Birbhum.



RESPONDENTS/O.P.S

Sri Asim Bhattacharya

Vill. & P.O. Damra

District – Birbhum.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mrs. Juthi Banerjee, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. Rajarshi Datta, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order 25.3.09 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum, Suri, in C.F. Case No. CC/29/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint in part on contest against the OP with a direction for restoration of the telephone line of the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 500/-.

The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant has been enjoying land telephone facilities at his residence since 1994. The complainant experienced frequent disruption of connection for non-maintenance of the telephone line at the instance of the OP. In spite of repeated requests the OP has not restored the telephone connection of the complainant and ultimately closed the same forever. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such arbitrary acts on the part of the OP/Appellant the petition of complaint was filed.

The OP/Appellant contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that about 4 Kms of overhead line passes through a dense forest and as there was frequent theft of overhead telephone line at the instance of some miscreants it was not possible for the OP/Appellant to ensure continuous connection to the complainant. The OP requested the complainant to convert his line into WLL connection for better service which the complainant did not agree. The OP was not at fault for closer of telephone connection of the complainant as things were beyond the control of the OP and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum after appreciating the case of respective parties has observed that there was no bonafide explanation as to what prevented the OP to restore the telephone connection of the complainant inasmuch as the request of the OP to resort to WLL connection was quite unjustified. There was enough scope for betterment of the telephone line of the complainant at the instance of the OP which the OP has not adopted for reasons best known to it. It was not incumbent upon the complainant to shift to a new connection which was expensive and was not favourable to the requirement of the complainant. For abrupt closure of the telephone line of the complainant has caused inconvenience to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service at the instance of the OP and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.

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

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that it is an admitted position that the concerned overhead line passes through a dense forest for about 4 Kms and due to frequent theft of overhead line at the instance of the miscreants, there was disruption of telephone connection of the complainant. Due to some unavoidable situation it was not possible on the part of the OP/Appellant to ensure regular and continuous telephone connection to the complainant. The difficulty was a practical difficulty in its true sense. There was alternative and better scope of availing telephone connection by the complainant through WLL connection which for reasons best known to the complainant, he has not accepted, for which the OP got nothing to do and under such circumstances, there cannot be any deficiency in service at the instance of the OP. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, when there was alternative arrangement to the complainant thereby ensuring better and flawless enjoyment of telephone connection, it was not just and proper on the part of the complainant/Respondent to refuse the same and having refused the same the complainant suffered, for which the Appellant/Respondent should not be held responsible as it has been observed by the Ld. District Forum. While criticizing the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that it was certainly out of jurisdiction on the part of the Ld. District Forum to comment that the Appellant ought to have resorted to underground connection in respect of the connection which runs through the forest. According to the Ld. Advocate, it was certainly out of jurisdiction on the part of the Ld. District Forum to comment and direct a institution like that of the OP/Appellant in this regard. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also submitted before us that the established norms and rules as provided under the act under which the activities of the OP/Appellant is governed, there is no scope to change the overhead line into an underground line as observed by the Ld. District Forum. The OP/Appellant is not permitted to violate the Central Government rules by expending a huge amount of public money for the purpose of underground line as directed and observed by the Ld. District Forum. The impugned judgement being based upon such improper proposition the same is not maintainable and liable to be set aside.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant as mentioned above and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is the specific case of the complainant that without assigning any bonafide reason the Appellant concern has disconnected the land line connection of the complainant forever and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such arbitrary act on the part of the Appellant the complainant had to resort to legal proceedings before the Ld. District Forum. In this connection, the OP has tried to put up a case to the effect that as serious inconvenience was experienced in maintaining an overhead line which passes through a dense forest and as there was frequent theft of overhead line at the instance of some miscreants, it was not possible on the part of the Appellant to maintain the overhead connection for the purpose of this case any further and when the complainant refused to convert his landline connection into WLL connection, which was offered at the instance of the Appellant to the Respondent, there was no alternative left before the Appellant but to close the landline connection forever. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we find that there is no challenge on the part of the Appellant that the landline connection was closed forever through which the complainant was enjoying landline facilities. We have duly considered the proposal put forward on behalf of the Appellant to the Respondent that for better facilities the Complainant/ Respondent ought to have resorted to WLL connection. In this connection we are of considered opinion that a consumer cannot be forced to adopt another connection when there was no bonafide reason to stop the existing landline connection. In this regard, we find that the approach taken by the Ld. District Forum was a justified and proper one. As regards restoration of telephone line of the complainant by the Appellant as ordered by the Ld. District Forum, we think that the same is quite justified. Considering the entire matter as a whole we are of the opinion that the complainant/Respondent was able to substantiate his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence. On the other hand, save and except an offer to convert the existing landline facilities to any connection, nothing positive has been put forward on behalf of the Appellant/OP and accordingly, we find no merit in the present Appeal and the same is liable to dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum stands confirmed. The OP/Appellant is directed to comply with the order of the Forum below in toto within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this order, failing which penalty @ Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) per day will be imposed on the Appellant for the period of default.



MEMBER MEMBER