DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 18th day of April, 2023
Filed on: 27/09/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 399/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Mrs. Baby joseph, w/o late Mr. Mt joseph,Mupraparambil house, olanad, varapuzha (P.O),Ernakulam, Kerala-pin-683517
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Assistant Engineer, BSNL, Varapuzha, Ernakulam, Kerala-pin-583 517
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, a customer of BSNL for 24 years, had both a landline connection and a broadband connection with them. Due to a flood in Kerala in August 2018, the complainant was unable to check their last month's bill and make the payment. When the complainant's son tried to make the payment and perform an urgent bank transaction on September 25, 2018, both the broadband and landline were not functioning. The complainant contacted BSNL customer care and was informed that the services had been terminated due to non-payment of the bill. The services were restored on September 26, 2018, the day the complainant filed the complaint. The complainant argues that since the due date mentioned on the bill was September 26, 2018, terminating the services on September 25 was unjust. The complainant also mentions that the reminder calls from BSNL were a disturbance and caused inconvenience. The complainant seeks compensation of Rs. 10,000 from BSNL for the mental agony and harassment caused, as well as a refund of Rs. 3,250 for costs incurred.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file the version. Consequently, both the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 1 document that was marked as Exhibit-A-1.
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the bill issued by the opposite party which shows Rs. 800.05 as previous balance and Rs. 398.92 as current bill amount i.e., for the billing period from 01 Aug 2018 to 30 Aug 2018.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced copy of the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
We have also noticed that a notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 All in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to file a version.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
In Union of India v. Mrs. S. Prakash [1991 (1) C.P.R. 307], it has been held that the subscriber of a telephone is a consumer as the rental charges paid to the Central Government is the consideration for the services rendered by the Tele-Communication Department- The Consumer Forum, therefore, has full jurisdiction to entertain complaint in the matter.
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.5000/- as the compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the illegal disconnection of telephone connection prior to the date notified in the bill as date of disconnection and thereby deficiency in service and unfair trade practices from the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 18th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: True copy of the bill issued by the opposite party which shows Rs. 800.05 as previous balance and Rs. 398.92 as current bill amount i.e., for the billing period from 01 Aug 2018 to 30 Aug 2018.
C.C.NO. 399/2019
Order dated 18/04/2023
