GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR vs MOHD. NADEEM

Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 20.2.2015 in Appeal No. 926 of 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, which had allowed Rs. one lakh towards compensation. The first Opposite Party was also directed to initiate departmental proceedings against the concerned responsible officers/employees and the Action Taken Report to be made available to the District Forum within three months.

The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had applied for a telephone connection with Broad Band facility for his domestic use on 26.8.2010 with the Opposite Parties and deposited an amount of Rs. 1750/- on 27.8.2010. He was allotted telephone No. 0141-2661966 and was assured that the connection would be given very soon. It is averred by the Complainant that despite several requests and lapse of one year, telephone connection was not given to the Complainant. Further bills of the afore-mentioned telephone were received at the residence of the Complainant for 2-3 months continuously. The Complainant had enquired with the Opposite Party and he was informed that the said telephone no. has already been made operational. Thereafter, when a call was made to the said telephone number, one Mr. Amrik Singh had answered and stated that the telephone was allotted in his name. The Complainant averred that due to this act of the Opposite Parties, his family suffered mental agony and therefore, he got issued a legal notice on 29.7.2011, seeking immediate connection of the allotted telephone number failing which the Department should pay compensation of Rs. one lakh and litigation cost. Despite legal notice, the Opposite Parties did not take any action. Vexed with their attitude, the Petitioner approached the District Forum.

The Opposite Parties filed their written version before the District Forum stating that it was not technically feasible to install the connection at the residence of the Complainant as the distance of D.P. No. 7513, 7514 and 7515 was about 150 meters from the Complainant''s residence. It is averred that the Department had tried their level best to connect through D.P. No. 7514 and 7515 but it was not technically feasible. It is also pleaded that, it was only on 1.10.2011, vide C.R.M. No. 1005474625 that the installation of the telephone connection became feasible and the department employee named Shri Hanuman Sahai Jat went to the Complainant''s residence but he was refused entry. They had also replied to the Complainant''s legal notice dated 1.10.2011 with all the reasons for not being able to install the connection, but the Complainant refused to accept the registered letter, which was returned undelivered. It is pleaded that the bills which were issued in the name of the Complainant were only due to the technical fault in the C.D.R. system, which has since been rectified. On 9.8.2011, 30.8.2011 and even thereafter there was lot of correspondence between the DGM (Broad Band and I.T.) and DGM (Network and Previous Operation) with respect to Telephone No. 2661966 for early redressal of the Complaint. When it became technically feasible on 1.10.2011 in the Complainant''s area, the Complainant refused to get the telephone connection and once again efforts were made on 24.3.2012 and 27.3.2012, but in vain. It is further pleaded that it was informed to the Complainant through letters that the Department is ready to install fixed wireless telephone through WLL system, but the Complainant refused the offer. It is pleaded by the Opposite Party/Department that there was

no deficiency of service on their part and that every effort was made to install the telephone connection.

The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced and the pleadings put forward, allowed the Complaint directing BSNL to pay an amount of 1,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and to make the telephone connection immediately operational and also initiate Departmental proceedings against the officers concerned and file Action Taken Report within three months.

Aggrieved by the said Order, BSNL preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.

Dis-satisfied with this order, BSNL preferred this Revision Petition.

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that in reply to the legal notice issued by the Complainant, they clearly stated there were technical problems in giving immediate connection and that the service order was cancelled due to non-installation of telephone No. 2661966 and that this number had become free and therefore, was allotted to Shri Amrik Singh. He submitted that number was allotted to Mr. Amrik Singh in January, 2011 and that Mr. Amrik Singh''s residence was 1 1/2 kilometres away from the Complainant and the connection was given through another Distribution Centre. It is further contended that the technical fault in the CDR system had led to the bills being raised in the name of the Complainant and after lodging a complaint in Chandigarh, this technical fault was also rectified.

The learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that even as on today they are receiving wrong bills.

A brief point that falls for consideration is whether the Revision Petitioner was deficient in their service in not providing the telephone connection to the Respondent/Complainant?

It is an admitted fact that the Respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 1750/- on 27.8.2010 towards installation of the telephone connection and that Telephone No. 2661966 was allotted to him and that the same number was again allotted to one Mr. Amrik Singh. It is an admitted fact that wrong billing was also done and bills were issued to the Complainant causing mental agony and harassment to him and his family members. It is not in dispute that legal notice dated 19.7.2011 was issued to the Petitioner herein who replied on 9.8.2011, but it was returned undelivered to the Petitioner herein. In the legal notice the Petitioner had explained that DP Nos. 7513, 7514 and 7515 were not technically feasible as there was no vacant slot to provide connection to the Respondent''s residence. A WLL connection was also offered as the Respondent had not come forward to avail of WLL connection. This offer was not specifically denied by the Complainant. Though there is force in the contention of the Petitioner herein that it was not technically feasible to provide the telephone connection to the Respondent/Complainant; equally there are no substantial reasons given for having allotted the same telephone number to one Mr. Amrik Singh. BSNL had not adhered to the principles of natural justice and not even informed the Complainant that the said number was being allotted to one Mr. Amrik Singh and that the specific time frame was needed to give him the said telephone connection. Instead, the Complainant was receiving the telephone bills of one Mr. Amrik Singh. While I agree with the concurrent finding of both the Fora below with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the Revision Petitioner herein, an amount of Rs. one lakh awarded towards compensation is excessive. It is observed that the connection was for residential purpose and there is no specific pleading with respect to having incurred any business loss. It is not specifically denied by the Complainant that he did not accept the offer made by the Petitioner with respect to WLL connection. Keeping all the facts and circumstances in view, I find it just and equitable to award reasonable compensation of Rs. 50,000/-together with costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the Complainant had suffered for not having provided the telephone connection for almost a year and also for having received wrong bills even subsequent to the passing of the order of the State Commission. The direction with respect to disciplinary action against the Department''s employees and filing of Action Taken Report is being set aside.

In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission with afore-mentioned directions. If the amount awarded is not paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, it would attract interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realisation.