DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, LOHARDAGA
Present:
President: Sri R.L. Sharma
Member : D.S. Oraon
Consumer Complaint No- 25/2006
Gaya Prasad Kasera, Complainant
S/o- Gandoury Sahu,
Upper Bazar, Tangratoli
P.S &Distt- Lohardaga
Vs
S.D.E, BSNL Lohardaga Opposite Party
P.S & Distt- Lohardaga
For the Complainant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh (Advocate)
For O.Ps. : Mr. R.B. Mahto (Advocate)
Complaint filed on 09.10.06
Order passed on 09.01.09
ORDER
1. The case of the complainant is that he is a telephone connection holder bearing landline no- 222292 under the telephone exchange lohardaga. In the middle of august 2006 his telephone line became out of order for which he lodged a complain and was assured that it would start functioning within two days but it remained un-functional. On 26-09-2006 and again on 03-10-2006 he lodged complain vide complain no-8 but his telephone line remained un-operational causing him mental harassment as well as financial loss in his business. On these facts he has prayed that OP may be directed to pay him Rs.30, 000/- towards business loss and Rs.20, 000/- on account of mental harassment.
2. On being noticed, OP appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a contesting written statement mentioning therein that at present the telephone connection of the complainant is well functioning. He had not informed the telephone exchange formally and technical authorities had no knowledge of any disruption and his complain is quit frivolous and need be dismissed. It is further contended that the telephone connection was disrupted for a short period due to cable fault by some contractor and it was not a fault on the part of BSNL. The complainant had already been granted a rent rebate of Rs.204/- which was adjusted in his bill of 12 Nov 2006. Since he had already enjoyed the benefit of rent rebate for the disruption period therefore he in not entitled for any other benefit or compensation. According to OP the complainant is defaulter and as such he is no more liable for any relief. On these facts it has been urged that the case of the complainant may be dismissed.
3. From pleadings, evidence, documents and submission of parties the admitted position in the instant case is that the telephone connection of the complainant was not functioning. The dispute between the parties lies with the date of non functioning of the telephone line. According to the complainant it was not in operational from the middle of the august. On the other hand there are two self contradictory version of OP on the factum of non-functioning of the said telephone line. It is the stand of OP that the complainant had not informed about non-functioning of the said telephone although we have seen that the complainant has lodged the complain on different date and his complain bearing no-8 was also registered on 03-10-2006. The second version of the OP on the said issue is that according to technical report it was out of order from last November for a short time only and not from august 2006 as claimed by the complainant.
4. To establish his case the complainant sought for detailed call statement of his telephone line from 26-09-2006 to 21-09-2007 but the OP failed to furnish the same. However, OP has filed list of call from 01-11-2006 to 30-06-2007. On perusal of the statement it appears from 01-11-2006 to 03-12-2006 only 4 calls were made during the said period. From 01-01-2007 to 28-02-2007 only 3 calls and similarly from 01-03-2007 to 30-04-2007 only 3 calls were made. However, from 01-05-2007 to 30-06-2007 six calls were made from the said telephone. The complainant is admittedly a businessman and the figure of total sixteen calls during entire eight month in itself gives credence to his version that his telephone line was not functioning most of the time. Be that as it may non-furnishing of detail call statement as sought compel us to draw an adverse inference against OP. The complainant on oath has deposed that his telephone line remained non-functional which was also corroborated by another witness Sudhir Kumar Khatri who on the night 30-12-2006 had gone to his house but found it non-functioning.
5. It appears that the OP has given a rent rebate of Rs.204/- to the complainant and this rebate ipso facto proves the contention of the complainant that his telephone line was not in order. Had it not been so then the question of rent rebate would not have arisen. Simply allowing a certain amount of rent rebate does not absolve the responsibility/liability to provide faultless continuous service to his consumers. It has been pleaded by OP that it was not the fault of BSNL but due to cable fault by some contractor the telephone line was disrupted. The plea of the OP is quit vague and purposely coined to save his skin. Neither detail of the so called contractor nor any action taken by the OP and not been furnished which shows that the aim of OP was only to deviate the issue. It was pleaded by the learned lawyer of the OP that the complainant is a defaulter therefore he is not entitled for any other benefit. This plea has got no force and thus untenable to us because of the fact that non-functioning of telephone line was not related with the alleged dues.
6. From a consideration of entire facts and discussion made above we find merit
in the case of the complainant and therefore we direct the OP to pay a compensation of
Rs.10, 000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant within 30 days from date of
passing of the order so far the claim of financial loss is concerned the complainant has failed to
establish the same by any cogent and reliable evidence and therefore the same is disallowed.
The case is accordingly allowed in part.
( D.S. Oraon ) (R.L. Sharma)
Member President