BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. PRATAP KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, 24-Paganas (South), wherein the Forum directed the O. P. to restore the telephone connection of the complainant within 15 days from the date of payment of outstanding bills. The O. P. was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,500/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.

(2.) The facts of the case of the complainant in brief are stated here. Being a subscriber of telephone connection he made several correspondences with the O. P. while the telephone remained dead since February, 2001. The complainant has alleged that as 'mashohara' payment was refused to some unscrupulous employees of the O. P. concerned of the locality, the connection was not restored. It is further alleged that inaction on the part of the O. P. in giving uninterrupted service to him is deficiency of service on the part of the O. P. Thereafter he filed a case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O. P. to restore the telephone connection and grant rental rebate from February, 2001 till restoration and compensation also.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the above order the BSNL- appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the telephone in question remained faulty on four occasions during the period from 1.11.2000 to 10.7.2001 and no complaint was made. It is stated by the appellant that the telephone was checked and found that the faults were due to a parallel connection to the said telephone and the defect was removed satisfactorily. It is further stated that the rental rebate during the defunct period had been sanctioned as per the Indian Telegraph Act and Rules. Due to respondent's internal problem the telephone line was faulty, in which the appellant did not have any role. Therefore, the award of compensation in favour of the respondent is not justified and contrary to law. According to the appellant the order passed by the Forum below is erroneous and liable to set aside.