Orissa

Cuttak

CC/70/2020

Kailash Chandra Baral - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO,BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

P C Pattanaik

25 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.70/2020

 

Kailash Chandra Baral,Advocate,

S/O:Late Bhaskar Chandra Baral,

At:Baral Lane,Badambadi,Cuttack-753012.                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        S.D.O,BSNL,

Cantonment Road,Block-1,

P.S:Cantonment,Buxi Bazar,

Cuttack-753001.

 

2.        The General Manager,

Telecom District, Cuttack,

Door Sanchar Bhawan,

Link Road,P.S:Madhupatha,

Cuttack-753012.                                                         ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     07.09.2020

Date of Order:   25.10.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. P.C.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P  No.1  :                     None.

For the O.P No.2:                Mr. D.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President              

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had a landline connection bearing no.06712335223 and this number is familiar to all the known persons and relatives of the complainant.  Due to fire accident at BSNL telephone exchange in the month of September 2019, the said landline phone was disconnected.  The complainant had to suffer since because no client of him would contact him thereafter.  The other disconnected telephones of the nearby locality though were restored within a period of 15 days, the telephone connection of the complainant was not restored.  The complainant had to run from pillar to post for restoring his disconnected landline but no fruitful result yielded.  The telephone bills since September 2019 go to show that the telephone was not functioning since then upto February 2020.  The complainant vide his letter dt.21.1.20 had written to the O.Ps in order to restore his telephone connection and ultimately had to file this case being harassed.  It is for this, the complainant by filing this case seeks immediate restoration of his telephone and has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment because of their deficiency in service and further has prayed for interest and costs.

            The complainant has filed certain copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, out of the two O.Ps, O.P no.1 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.31.3.20.  As such, it is O.P no.2 who had alone contested this case and has filed his written version.

            According to the written version of O.P no.2, the complainant had a landline connection bearing no.06712335223 and the bills thereto were being paid also.  Due to short-circuit in the month of September 2019 at Bajrakabati Telephone Exchange of Cuttack several telephone connections were disconnected and subsequently within 15 days, all of those were restored.  The O.P admits about the restoration of the telephone line of the complainant was on 13.10.20.  O.P no.2 in his written version has stated that due to the super cyclone ‘Funny’ several telephone connections were disconnected those which were gradually restored within a span of 15 days but due to the drainage and sewerage work as undertaken by JICA, the underground cables of BSNL were severely damaged for which the telephone connection of the complainant was affected.  Even if there was outstanding due of Rs.3,299/- as on 12.10.20, a sum of Rs.3099/- was deducted as rebate and the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.100/-.  Thus, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and in the contents of the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issues no. ii.

            Out of three issues as framed here in this case, Issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant had a telephone landline connection bearing No. 06712335223.  It is also admitted that due to the super-cyclone ‘Funny’ most of the telephone lines were disconnected but those were restored within a span of 15 days .  The landline connection of the complainant could not be restored for which, after making several oral requests, the complainant had to write to the O.Ps through his letter dt.21.1.20 and thereafter, according to the O.P No.2, the said landline connection of the complainant which was disconnected, was reconnected on 12.10.20.  The reason assigned to that effect by O.P no.2 through his written version is that, due to the drainage and sewerage works undertaken by JICA, the underground cables of BSNL were severely affected and it is for this, the landline connection of the complainant was restored on 12.10.20.  There is no other delay restoration in the vicinity/locality area of the complainant which has been brought to the notice of this Commission by the O.Ps of this case.  Thus, in absence of such, the only delay restoration of the landline connection belonging to the complainant tilts our eyebrows.  It is because, there is no allegation about the outstanding arrears if any from the side of the complainant, rather, O.P no.2 has admitted that in the open house hearing the complainant had paid the amount as demanded from him even if by then no restoration of landline connection was given to him.  Thus, this clearly indicates the latches of the O.Ps as regards to delay restoration of the landline connection of the complainant and the plea of JICA work as taken by the O.Ps do not hold good.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the above discussions, when the complainant was found to be completely harassed he had filed this case which is ofcourse maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

       ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.P No.2 and exparte against O.P no.1.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 1.10.19 till the total amount is quantified.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member