West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/13/2016

Shri Kamal Chakraborty, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Chief General Manager, (W.B.Telecom),BSNL, - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Shri Biswa Nath Konar,  President.

            It is the case of the complainant Kamal Chakraborty that he has a telephone connection being No. (03463)261-117 and the same has been remained out of order since March 2015 though he has been regularly paying the telephone bills to the O.P No.3, S.D.O(T), BSNL, Bolpur. O.P No.1 and 2 are Chief General Manager, West Bengal Telecom Circle, BSNL and General Manager, BSNL Suri, respectively.  

            It is the further case of the complainant that he visited many official of O.P No3 and sent representative/messenger to O.P No.3 for restoration of his telephone line.

            By sending letter dated 14.10.15, 14.11.15 and 21.12.15 he requested the O.Ps to take suitable steps for restoration of telephone line but in vain.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen of 76 years and facing much trouble to make contact with his daughters settled in USA and Mumbai by telephone line and suffering from anxiety and agony.

            Hence this case for directing the O.Ps to restore the telephone line and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment, pain and mental agony.

            The O.Ps/BSNL have contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending, inter alia that the case is not maintainable and barred under section 7B Indian Telegraph Act.

            It is the specific case of the O.Ps that the disturbance of the telephone line of the complainant was due to mechanical fault and the complainant has suppressed the material facts of restoration of telephone line. Only to harass the O.Ps the complainant has filed the present case and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?

 

2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Both parties have not filed any oral evidence but filed some documents.

Heard arguments of both sides.

Point No.1:: Admittedly the complainant has a telephone connection being No. 03463 261117 under the BSNL, Bolpur on payment of bills.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.Ps No. 2 & 3 have Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 80,000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            It is the case of the complainant that he has a telephone connection being No. 03463 261117 under the BSNL, Bolpur on payment of bills.

            Original bill for the period 01/07/15 to 31/08/15 and money receipt dated 15.09.15 amounting to Rs. 365/- show that the complainant has a telephone connection under the O.Ps.

            In his complaint the complainant alleged that the said telephone line has remained out of order since March 2015.

            It is further case of the complainant that he visited many official of O.P No3 and sent representative/messenger to O.P No.3 for restoration of his telephone line.

            By sending letter dated 14.10.15, 14.11.15 and 21.12.15 he requested the O.Ps to take suitable steps for restoration of telephone line but in vain.

            Copy of the letter dated 14.10.15. 14.11.15 and 21.12.15 with postal receipts show that the matter of out of order of the telephone line of the complainant was duly informed by him to O.P No. 1 and 2.

            On the other hand it is the case of the O.Ps due to mechanical fault said line could not be restored.

            But the O.Ps have failed to submit any scrap of paper to show that actually there was any mechanical fault in the line and the same has been duly informed to the complainant by sending any intimation.

            Copy of letter dated 22.10.16 shows that JTO (O/D), Bolpur, Birbhum informed the AGM, Suri, Birbhum about restoration of said line on 23.08.2016.

            The complainant has not denied the factum of restoration of line on 23.08.2016.

            According to complainant said telephone had been remain out of order since March 2015 and he met with officials of BSNL Suri on several occasion and sending messenger or representative requested them to restore the line.

            Copy of letter dated 14.10.15, 14.11.15 and 21.12.15 show that O.P No.1 and 2 were requested to restore the line by sending letters.

            The present case has been filed on 21.01.16.

            So, it is clear that about one and half years after disorder of telephone line and about 7/8 months after filing of the present case and during pendency of the case telephone line in question has been restored by the O.Ps without showing any reasonable cause for not restoring the line promptly which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps / BSNL.

            During hearing of argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.Ps/BSNL submitted that the present case is barred under section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, as the dispute should be referred to Arbitrator.

            But there is nothing to show that jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum has been completely ousted by any provision of Indian Telegraph Act.

            So, we are constrained to hold that this Forum has ample jurisdiction to try this case.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to  hold that the complainant has able to prove his case that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps BSNL Company and they are liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            The telephone line in question has already been restored. So, it is not necessary to pass any order in this regard. Thus both these points are decided in favour of the complainant. Case succeeds.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 13/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest in part with cost of Rs. 2000/-.

The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

All such payments be made within three months from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.