B K GUPTA vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

THIS appeal has been directed by Sh. B.K. Gupta, complainant against order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby his complaint was dismissed, being meritless and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant Sh. B.K. Gupta is a consumer of telephone No. 2668373. He has applied for Sulabh Scheme on 13.11.2003 due to excess calls but the department slept over the matter and it was provided to him only on 12.3.2004 after he met the Deputy General Manager on 11.3.2004. However, during the said period, he had to pay excess bills for Rs. 2134 (for 12/2003 and 1/2004) and Rs. 1719 (for Feb -March/2004). It was next alleged that his telephone was disconnected on 3.12.2003 without any reason and was restored on 4.12.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. He also averred that if Sulabh Scheme had been provided to him within a reasonable period, then he would have been saved from paying aforesaid excessive bills, as only 2 -3 cards of the value of Rs. 108 each were used per month since Sulabh Scheme was provided to him.

HE further averred that on 12.3.2004, he had purchased telephone card No. 9476643795 and used at 00.15 hrs on 13.3.2004 by dialing 0061423718793 but without any response from the other side and the value of his card became less by Rs. 10 for which he wrote letter dated 15.4.2004 to the Deputy General Manager. He also stated that on 13th and 14th March, 2004 there were holidays and he had tried telephone No. 1600331722 (toll free) for several hours but only the voice was heard after dialing long numbers ''kindly dial after some time as the line is busy''.

IT was further alleged that the appellant, being a senior citizen, had to run from one office to another but of no avail and he had to suffer mental tension and harassment and ultimately sent notice under postal certificate to the Principal General Manager, BSNL, Chandigarh on 26.2.2004 but the respondent failed to give any reply. With these pleadings, he claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000 plus Rs. 10 on account of jumping of meter charges, Rs. 500 as costs and excess charges, he was made to pay due to deficiency in service on the part of respondent.

RESPONDENT contested the complaint and stated that the complaint against P.G.M.T was not maintainable as he had not hired any service on consideration from him and that the suit for recovery was not maintainable in the Forum. On merits, it stated that the telephone of the appellant was not disconnected but was made one -sided on 3.12.2003 due to oversight but the same was restored on 4.12.2003. It, however, admitted that the appellant had applied for Sulabh Scheme on 13.11.2003 and the same was provided to him on 12.3.2004, because he had also applied for providing of Caller Line Identification for which the matter was processed and first the file was sent to Dy. General Manager (South) for his approval to provide the said facility and after the receipt of the said approval, another case for providing Sulabh Scheme was processed and the approval of the Dy. General Manager (South) was obtained on 11.3.2004 and the facility was provided to him on 12.3.2004 and, as such, there was no delay in providing the Sulabh Scheme as the two facilities were processed separately. It next stated that the appellant has not suffered any loss. It further stated that the appellant had paid the bills of Rs. 2135 and Rs. 1719 as he had used the telephone and even if, Sulabh Scheme was provided to him earlier, then also he was required to pay the said amounts for the calls made by him. It denied the other allegations and stated that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

AFTER hearing the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent the District Consumer Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, dismissed the complaint by holding it to be meritless and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2005, complainant has filed the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of service of notice upon it, accordingly it was proceeded against ex parte on 21.7.2005.

WE have heard Sh. B.K. Gupta, appellant in person and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that the appellant is a consumer of telephone No. 2668373. It is also an admitted fact that it was made non -functional on 3.12.2003 and was made functional on 4.12.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. The case of the appellant is that it was totally disconnected on 3.12.2003 and the connection was restored on 4.12.2003. However, the case of the respondent is that due to an inadvertent mistake, it was made one -sided on 3.12.2003 and was made fully functional on 4.12.2003. It had not been detailed in the written reply in what manner due to inadvertent mistake it was made one -sided on 3.12.2003. It is not the case of respondent that due to some technical defect, it was made onesided. Certainly there was negligence on the part of respondent when it was made one -sided on 3.12.2003 and the same was made fully functional on 4.12.2003. The appellant had stated in Annexure -I dated 5.12.2003 that he rang up his own telephone from some other telephone and the tape was on with the following words ''this telephone has been disconnected temporarily''. It was further stated by him that his son had gone to Delhi and he was worried about him and wanted to know whether he had reached Delhi or not, but due to wrong disconnection of telephone he suffered torture and mental tension. The other grouse of the appellant is that he applied for Sulabh Scheme on 13.11.2003 as he used to receive bills for excessive calls but the department slept over the matter and he was provided with the Sulabh Scheme on 12.3.2004, after four months, after he met the Deputy General Manager on 11.3.2004. The explanation of the respondent is that appellant had also applied for providing him Caller Line Identification for which the matter was processed and the file was sent to Dy. G.M. (South) for his approval and after the receipt of the approval, another case for providing Sulabh Scheme was processed and the approval of the Dy. G.M. (South) was obtained on 11.3.2004 and as the case was processed separately for providing two facilities, so, there was delay. This explanation does not appeal to reason. It is not the case that both facilities were to be provided by two different authorities. Approval for both the facilities was to be provided by one authority i.e. Dy. General Manager (South). The case would have been sent simultaneously for providing both the facilities. It is not the case that Sulabh Scheme could not have been provided before providing Caller Line Identification. Thus, the department slept over the matter for about four months without any justification and did not provide Sulabh Scheme facility within reasonable time, say, maximum within one month. The appellant had to incur extra amount i.e. he had to pay Rs. 2134 (for December, 2003 and January, 2004) and Rs. 1719 (for February and March, 2004). If the respondent had provided him Sulabh Scheme facility within reasonable time, then he would have incurred at the maximum of Rs. 500 per month i.e. for four months Rs. 2000, but he incurred Rs. 3853 for four months, so, certainly the department had acted in a callous manner and there is deficiency in service.

WE , consequently, accepted the appeal with costs and grant compensation of Rs. 500 for disconnection of his telephone or making one sided without any reason on 3.12.2003 till 4.12.2003 up to 5.00 p.m. and further grant Rs. 1000 as compensation on account of providing Sulabh Scheme very late without any reasonable cause or excuse, and thus, caused him mental torture as being senior citizen, he had to run from pillar to post to get the Sulabh Scheme implemented. Costs are quantified at Rs. 500. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation and the costs, within one month. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed. -