DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE, KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO._152 OF 2009
DATE OF FILING: 18.6.2009 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT_25.11.2009_
________________________________________________________________________
Present : President : Dipak Shyam Roy
Member(s) : Amitabha Roy Chowdhury & Sharmi Basu
________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Uma Das, d/o Sri N.C Das, 29, Narkel Bagan , P.S. Jadavpur, Kol-32
- >> versus << -
O. P. / O. PS : OTR-III, Office of the Area Manager, BSNL, Rani Kuthi,
154, N.S.C Bose Road, P.S. Regent Estate, Kolkata – 40
________________________________________________________________________
>> J U D G E M E N T <<
________________________________________________________________________
The complainant Smt. Uma Das of 29, Narkel Bagan ,P.S. Jadavpur, Kol-32, filed this complaint against the O.P AOTR-III, BSNL, Rani Kuthi , on charges of deficiency in service. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is enjoying three connections under the TRICON FACILITIES provided by the O.P consisting of :
(i) Landline no.24132069
(ii) Mobile No. 9433052526
(iii) BB Internet Connection no. 24187436
The complainant is paying the bills regularly. But she came to know from the receiver of her BB internet connection that her BB Connection has been disconnected on or about 28.4.2009 for non payment of bills. The complainant had lodged a complaint to the O.P on 29.4.2009 against this illegal disconnection, by registered post and the letter was received by the O.P on 2.5.2009. By that letter she had requested the O.P to reconnect her BB connection within 24 hours failing which the O.P shall have to pay Rs. 1000/- per diem. But the O.P did not care to respond and did not reconnect her BB connection. Hence this complaint.
The complainant prayed to this Forum for a direction upon the O.P to pay compensation till reconnection of the B B connection with interest .
The O.P/BSNL stated in the written version that they did not disconnect the BB service of the complainant. But they had disconnected the land line connection on 19.5.2009 for non payment of the concerned bill dt. 7.4.2009 within due date. O.P further stated that the complainant had actually consumed 4MB of BB usage time during April and 8 MB of BB usage time during May. So there is no question of disconnection of the BB service on or around 28.4.2009. His BB service is still in working status.
Decision of the Forum: We have examined the documents filed by the parties and also heard their Ld. Counsels. The complainant’s case in brief is that a) he pays the telephone bills regularly in respect of his landline telephone , his broadband internet connection and his mobile phone under TRICON FACILITIES . But his broad band connection has been disconnected by the O.P on or about 28.4.2009 for non-payment of bills , (b) On 29.4.2009 he had sent a letter of objection to the O.P against illegal disconnection of the broad band connection by registered post, which had been received by the O.P on 2.5.09.; He had requested the O.P to reconnect his broad band connection by that letter. But O.P did not take any action.
Against the allegation of disconnection, the O.P stated in written version that they have not disconnected his broad band, but they had disconnected his landline connection no. 24132069 on 19.5.2009 for non-payment of the bill dt. 7.4.2009. The due date for payment of the bill was 4.5.2009, but the complainant paid the bill on 25.5.2009 after it had been disconnected. His broad band was however not disconnected on or after 28.4.09 and he had made use of the broad band connection in April 2009 and May, 2009. During April he consumed 4 MB and during May he consumed 8 MB on his broad band connection no. 24187436. Although there was no usage during June, 2009, but the broad band connection is still in working status. From the documents (usage details) for the said broad band connection , as has been submitted by the O.P, we find that the said broad band service was accessed by the complainant on 4.4.09, 6.4.09, 24.4.09, 1.5.09 and 12.5.09. The complainant alleged that the broad band connection was disconnected on or around 28.4.09 and that he knew it from the voice recording from the receiver of the telephone of BB internet. O.Ps claim that the complainant had consumed BB usage time after 28.4.09 on 1.5.09 and 12.5.09 , which is supported by usage report of BSNL could not be contriverted by the complainant producing any reliable and convincing evidence besides his oral statement that he came to know from voice recording from the receiver of the telephone that his broad band connection has been disconnected. He also did not cross examine the O.P. We have therefore to rely upon the contention of the O.P that the Broad Band connection of the complainant had not been disconnected on or about 28.4.2009.
As regards the other allegation of the complainant that his letter dt. 29.4.2009 had not been responded by the O.P, although they received the letter on 2.5.09, the O.P stated that they did not receive the same. The O.P has submitted a copy of their incoming and outgoing record register to show that the letter was not received at their office. But we have seen that the postal Department has categorically declared that the letter had been delivered to the O.P on 2.5.2009 which we cannot disbelieve. May be that the said letter had been received by them on 2.5.09, but it was not duly recorded in their incoming register which , as we know from our experience , is not very uncommon in an office today. However, the allegation of the complainant regarding the disconnection of Broad Band being not acceptable, the O.P should have responded the letter of the complainant and in that case perhaps the present litigation could have been avoided. Sitting tight over the letter of the complainant, without giving any reply, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part f service provider to his consumer.
Hence Ordered
That the complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in part and the complainant do get an order of cost only. The O.P is directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the O.P within 30 days ,failing which it shall carry 10% interest until the payment is made.
Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
Tags: BSNL