BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. SIVANANDAN SHYAMRANGAM PANAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite parties 1 to 4 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha have filed this appeal challenging the order of the forum directing them to give reconnection to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order and also to cancel the bills during the period of disconnection and to refund the amount deducted from the security deposit towards the phone bill during such period and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant.

(2.) Case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a landline customer of opposite parties (BSNL). From October 2013 onwards the landline connection of the complainant was not functioning and he informed the matter to the 4 opposite party and a line supervisor was th appointed to rectify the defects, but he reported that it was due to the fault of the BSNL system and only a highly qualified technician can cure the fault. Thereafter complainant repeated his request several times. On 12.05.2014 complainant wrote letter for a permanent solution of his problem to the 2 opposite party. Again on 01.07.2014 complainant wrote a detailed complaint nd to the 1 opposite party. Lastly on 11.10.2014 an advocate's notice was sent to the opposite st parties. The opposite parties failed to rectify the complaint of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint was filed. In the version opposite party admitted that on 11.10.2014 the 2 nd opposite party had received legal notice from the complainant. Immediately the 2 opposite party enquired about the complaint and came to nd know that there was any technical fault as alleged in the legal notice. After a detailed enquiry it is understood that the line disconnection was only due to the non-payment of bill amount. This was duly informed vide letter dated 01.12.2014 itself. So there was no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.

(3.) To prove his complaint, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced by him were marked as Exts. A1 to A14. Opposite party was examined as RW1.