BSNL Vs. BUDDHADEB GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed challenging order dated 2.8.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, in DF Case No. 7/2006 whereby the following was ordered:

(2.) THE facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant is a subscriber of landline Telephone No. 2468 -8558 installed in the year 1996 at the residence of the complainant. The complainant was duly paying the telephone bills month by month in respect of the said telephone and the average amount billed was Rs. 250. In the month of October, 2005 the complainant applied for Broad Band Service from the O.P.I. Although the Password and ID was given to the complainant on 20.10.2005 no representative from the O.P. 1 came to instal the Broad Band Service though an amount of Rs. 250 was charged for installation of Broad Band Service. Therefore, hiring outsider technician the complainant got the system installed on 28.10.2005. The complainant required the Broad B and Service for carrying on trade in Stock Exchange for livelihood. Unfortunately, the Broad B and Service worked till 4.11.2005 and, thereafter, it went out of service displaying that Password was found invalid. On the complaint made by the complainant over phone the service was restored but this Broad Band Service finally failed from 7.11.2005 showing that the Password was not lodging. In spite of several complaints thereafter no rectification was made. Several letters were written by the complainant but the O.Ps. paid no heed. The complainant received bills for period September 2005 to October 2005 amounting to Rs. 1,965 out of which Rs. 1,100 was for Broad Band Service. Complainant wrote letter raising objection against the said bill. A further bill was received by the complainant for the period between 31.10.2005 to 30.11.2005 amounting to Rs. 1,775 and the telephone charges during the period was Rs. 442. Further two bills for Rs. 604 and Rs. 595 were supplied to the complainant. In the circumstances the complaint was filed seeking relief of removal of the Modem in question, restoration of the telephone line, setting aside of the exorbitant bill and for compensation of Rs. 1 lac. The complaint was decided on contest by the order mentioned hereinabove and impugned in the present appeal. The appeal was decided by order dated 31.7.2007 by a Bench of two Non - Judicial Members which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was allowed by a Hon'ble Single Judge on 21.8.2008 setting aside the said judgment and remanding matter to this Commission for decision in accordance with the direction for hearing by a Bench having the President as a Member of the Bench.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Kundu the learned Advocate for the respondent.