DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> <br /> C.C.No.39/2008<br /> <br /> Somey.P.J,<br /> S/o.Joseph,<br /> Panachikkal House,<br /> Kunduvanpadam (P.O),<br /> Kadampazhippuram,<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (By Adv.M.P.Ravi)<br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1. The Divisional Manager,<br /> BSNL,<br /> Cherpulassery,<br /> Palakkad.<br /> <br /> 2. The General Manager,<br /> BSNL, Palakkad. <br /> <br /> 3. The Junior Telecom Manager,<br /> BSNL, Kadampazhipuram. - Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> <br /> The case of complainant in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> Complainant is having a land line telephone connection bearing No.2267772 under the Kadampazhippuram Telephone Exchange from the year 2000 onwards. On 27/04/07 the said connection became dead and on enquiry the complainant came to know that the overhead telephone line to the said telephone was broken. The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and made a complaint. But the 3rd opposite party has not taken any steps to get it repaired. Hence the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and has given a written complaint on 20/06/07 requiring him to take necessary action for rectifying the defects and to ensure telehpone service to complainant. Subsequently the 3rd opposite party issued a letter on 21/06/07 to complainant stating that maintaining of over head lines and lying of U.G cables is not feasible due to public objection for crossing private land. In the said letter the 3rd opposite party has also asked the complainant to take WLL connection within 15 days from the date of said letter. When the complainant received the said letter, he has given a complaint <br /> <br /> to the 1st opposite party on 02/07/07 requesting him to approached the Additional District Magistrate under the Indian Telegraph Act for removing the obstruction. The 1st opposite party has neither approached the Additional District Magistrate nor issued any reply to the complainant.<br /> <br /> The complainant is using the land line connection from the year 2000 onwards without any interruption and during the last seven years there has not raised any objection from any party. According to the complainant, till date the opposite parties have not rectified the complaint. Complainant has issued a lawyer notice dt.18/12/07 to opposite parties calling upon them to rectify the defect and provide uninterrupted telephone service to the complainant. Receiving the said notice, Deputy General Manager of BSNL has issued a reply stating that the fault in the over head line cannot be attended due to objection from the land owners and requesting the complainant to take WLL connection. The above act of opposite parties amount to clear deficiency of service on their part.<br /> <br /> Hence the complainant prays before this forum for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify the complaint of the land line and provide uninterrupted telephone service to the complainant through the existing land line connection, and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation.<br /> <br /> Notice was served and opposite parties filed version.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties denies all the averments contained in the complaint except those are specifically admitted.<br /> <br /> According to the opposite parties, complainant has provided with a telephone connection on 01/05/1999. The telecommunication alignment providing the above connection was erected through paddy field at the time of providing connection. But later the owners of the properties planted sapling of banana and arecanut tree in the field through which the telephone posts were previously erected. The owners of the property objected to any type of repair work in the overhead line passing over their property on the plea that crops will get damaged. As a result of which, opposite party was not able to attend the faults caused due to the break in wires feeding the telephone number of the complainant. According to the information gathered from the field by the opposite parties, two cases are pending before the <br /> <br /> Munsiff Court, Palakkad and JFCM Court No.2, Palakkad against the owners of the said property <br /> regarding obstruction to thoroughfare through the paddy field.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties have informed by letter dt.21/06/07 that maintenance of over head lines and laying UG cable is not feasible due to objection for crossing private land and further adviced the complainant to take WLL connection in place of land line connection. According to the opposite parties technology selection is the prerogative of the service provider. It is upto the service provider to decide what type of technology is to be provided to a particular customer according to the feasibility and geographical condition of the area and the revenue thus earned after huge investment.<br /> <br /> Non maintenance of wireline connection through a private party's compound that too after his objection cannot be attributed as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint has to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 marked. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit. Exts.B1 and B2 marked.<br /> <br /> The issues for consideration are;<br /> 1)Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2)If so, what is the reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> It is an admitted fact that the complainant is using the land line connection from the year 2000 onwards without any interruption. The connection became dead on 27/04/07 as stated in proof affidavit. The fact was intimated to the opposite party No.2 by the complainant as evidenced from Ext.A1. After receiving Ext.A2 letter stating the inability of opposite party for maintaining over head lines due to public objection, complainant further sent letters to opposite parties asking them to approach Additional District Magistrate as per Indian Telegraph Act to settle the issue. This is evident from Ext.A3 and Ext.A4. Even then the opposite parties has not taken any steps for settling the issue. Registered lawyer notice dt.18/12/07 was issued to opposite parties. Lawyer notice and acknowledgement marked as Ext.A5 series. Reply notice (Ext.A6) was issued by the opposite parties stating the same reason that restoration of land line connection is not possible because of public objection. <br /> <br /> The contention of the opposite parties are solely based on Ext.B1 series, the letters issued by the owners of the land stating that paddy field has been converted and saplings of banana and arecanut were planted. In the said letters the owners of the property objected to any type of repair work in the over head line passing through their property on the plea that crops will get damaged. The owners of the land are neither impleaded as parties nor any commission was taken for assessing true facts.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties have ample powers under Section 11 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to enter property in order to repair line. When there is any resistance or obstruction, u/s 16 of the said Act, the authority can approach the District Magistrate as well. It is evident from the exhibits marked that the opposite parties have not taken any steps to effect repair and restore connection. It is not fare on the part of the opposite parties to insist the complainant to take WLL connection in the place of already existing land line connection.<br /> <br /> In view of the above circumstances, the forum holds the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> As deficiency of service of the opposite parties is established. The complainant is entitled to get the connection restored. The complainant has not proved the financial loss for Rs.25,000/-. Complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to effect repair and restore telephone connection of the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost within one month from the date of communication of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a from the date of order<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of September, 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> President (Sd)<br /> <br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Copy of Lr. dt.20/06/07 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party <br /> Ext.A2 – Lr. dt.21/06/07 sent by 3rd opposite party to the complainant <br /> Ext.A3 – Lr. dt.02/07/07 sent by complainant to the Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Cheruplassery.<br /> Ext.A4 – Copy of lr. dt.20/08/07 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party <br /> Ext.A5 (Series) – Copy of lawyer notice dt.18/12/07 sent by complainant to the opposite parties, acknowledgement cards and postal receipts.<br /> <br /> Ext.A6 – Reply notice dtd.07/01/2008 sent by Dy. General Manager, BSNL, Palakkad.<br /> Ext.A7 – Telephone Bill dt.07/01/2008<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties <br /> <br /> Ext.B1 (Series) - Copies of letters issued by owners of land.<br /> <br /> Ext.B2 - Copy of lr. dt.02/04/08 issued from the office of the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> Cost (Allowed)<br /> <br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost to the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent