SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

  Complainant filed  this complaint  under Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to reinstate the telephone connection of complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- a towards cost.

   Briefly stated , the facts of the  case are that the complainant is the subscriber of  Op  from 1988 onwards.  This telephone was installed in the house in which the complainant’s 93&84 years  aged father and mother  were resided.  The said telephone was not  properly working  from March 2021 onwards.  Complainant made several complaints as well as orally and  online, but all the complaints were closed without proper repair and redressal.  Around 8 months  the said telephone was not in working condition.  Complainant paid the rent properly even that period also. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP, the complainant is entitled to  get compensation .  Hence this complaint

    OP filed version and pleaded that the Op has conveyed to the complainant on many occasions that this landline connection is beyond economical repair and he can switch over to the FTTH service of the OP  with same telephone number, very high data speed and better voice clarity. The only solution to reinstate the landline service in this locality is to  replace this entire length of cable with a new one.  There are no other applicants for landline connection in this area.  Approximate cost of the cable itself will come around Rs.171808/- (Rs.104/m) + GST) Trenching charges will come around  Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rs.125/m).  Right of way charges to the panchayath is also to be paid.  BSNL cannot spend  such a  huge amount to restore the service to a single customer since its financial condition is grim and moreover the return on this investment cannot be realized. OP has extended optical fiber connectivity to this locality to provide FTTH connections.  Many of the old landline customers are migrated to the FTTH service and getting fault  free voice and data service with the same old telephone number.  The complainant was also offered this service, but he was not willing to accept the offer. With the continuous persuasion of the OP, the complainant has now availed  the FTTH service with the same telephone number and is using it from 1/4/22.  Rent rebate of Rs.1441.67 for the  faulty period of the landline connection is approved  by the competent authority and it will be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. Since alternate service is provided and rent rebate for the faulty period is approved,  this OP has extended all eligible benefits to the complainant. Hence  this complaint may be dismissed with cost.

    At the evidence stage, complainant filed his proof affidavit and documents.  Examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A3.  On the side of OP, Junior Telecom officer(BSNL) filed his proof affidavit and documents .  Examined as DW1 and marked Exts.B1 to B3.  Both witness were subjected to cross-examined by other party.  After that the learned counsel of both parties filed written argument notes.

    We have considered the material placed on record in the light of the facts, circumstances and submissions of the  learned counsels.

    From the evidence on record, it is evident that  the telephone of the complainant was not working from 26/10/2021(Ext.A2 )and this fact was also admitted by the OP.  It is also a fact that the complainant has lodged repeated complaints with regard to non-working of the telephone to OP.

   OP submitted that  the complainant’s residence where  this landline connection is working is 1900 mtr away from the main cable route of BSNL.  A 500 mtr 50 pair underground copper cable followed by a 1400mtr 20 pair cable is extended to this locality from the main cable.  Multiple damages were occurred to this 1400 mtr 20 pair cable  during the road work and KWA pipeline work in previous years and now all the spare cable pairs in this cable are faulty.  It is not possible to attend these faults again since this cable itself is under the road now and the joints are not accessible.  The only solution to reinstate the landline service in this locality is to  replace this entire length of cable with a new one.  There are no other applicants for landline connection in this area.  Approximate cost of the cable itself will come around Rs.171808/- (Rs.104/m) + GST) Trenching charges will come around  Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rs.125/m).  Right of way charges to the panchayath is also to be paid.  BSNL cannot spend  such a  huge amount to restore the service to a single customer since its financial condition is grim and moreover the return on this investment cannot be realized.

      It is  also submitted that, after receiving this complaint, OP again contact complainant and connected FTTH server from 1/4/2022 and the rent rebate of Rs.1441.67 for the  faulty period of the land line connection is approved.  Ext.B2 shows  that the rent rebate from 5/8/21 to 3/6/22  was approved  .  Ext.B3 shows the circular issued by Deputy General Manager dtd.14/9/23 stating that new land line orders shall not  be accepted.  From Ext.B3, we cannot insist  OP to re-instate the land line connection to the complainant.  Here though OP submitted that after getting complaints from the complainant about the non-working of the telephone, they requested complainant to avail FTTH facility, no evidence is submitted.  It is evident that after receiving  copy of this consumer complaint, OP has connected FTTH connection to the complainant.  According to complainant, OP has given  FTTH connection , without his consent and it was disconnected due to  non-payment of bill.  The OP  also failed to prove that the cable connection of complainant’s area became damaged due to the work of KWA authority.  Thus it is proved that the telephone connection of the complainant was not working  properly and the defect was not removed at the earliest, which caused harassment and agony to the complainant as well as his parent who used the said connection.  In any case complainant had to sent repeatedly complaints in order to redress his grievance before the authorities concerned and ultimately when all his efforts went  in vain(Ext.A2), only then he had to file this complaint.  So  some amount  is to be awarded to the complainant for his sufferings.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall be sufficient and Rs.2500/- towards cost of the litigation expense.

      In the result complaint is  allowed in part.  Opposite party is directed to  pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2500/- towards cost of the litigation expense to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which Rs.10,000/- will carry interest @7% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per Consumer Protection Act 2019.    

Exts:

A1-Right to information 30//3/22

A2& A3-phone bill dtd.9/10/22, 1/12/22

B1- Estimate  of cost

B2- Rebate bill

B3- Circular from Deputy General Manager,BSNL.

PW1-P.M.Sreejith-complainant

DW1-Abdul Nazar Thekattil

Sd/                                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                      MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR