National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pratap Kumar Banerjee vs Bsnl And Anr. on 9 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ359(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 30.6.2004 of the State Commission of West Bengal, wherein the State Commission directed as follows:
The appellant shall grant rental rebate for that period for which the telephone was not in order, if not already paid. The amount of the rental rebate may be adjusted in the future bills of the respondent. As deficiency has not been proved on the part of the appellant we think that award of compensation of Rs. 1,500 by the Forum below was not proper and not in accordance with law. So we are inclined to set aside the cost and compensation as awarded by the Forum below.
2. Case of the petitioner/complainant is that his telephone was not functional/dead since February 2001 as he was unwilling to pay bribe to the lower-functionaries of the respondent/opposite party-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). He filed complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to the opposite party to restore telephone connection and grant rental rebate from February 2001 till restoration and compensation.
3. BSNL Calcutta contended that the telephone number remained faulty only on four occasions and there was no complaint whatsoever in respect of the said telephone after 24.6.2001. When the telephone was checked it was found that the fault was due to unauthorized parallel connection and the defect was removed satisfactorily. The District Forum ordered that BSNL should restore the telephone connection within 15 days from the date of payment of outstanding bills and ensure that such defects do not recur and had further ordered compensation of Rs. 1,500 with Rs. 500 as costs. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the BSNL filed an appeal which was allowed on contest on the terms mentioned supra.
4. Having heared the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent we are convinced that the telephone went out of order only on four occasions and out of which on two occasions it was repaired on the same day and on the other two occasions it was repaired within elevan days and four days respectively. The contention of BSNL that there was a parallal line installed by the complainant could not be disproved by the complainant.
5. The learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner brought to our notice the judgment of the National Commission in R.P No. 330 of 2002-Dr. Gokulanand Sahay. Advocate and Anr. v. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Patna and Ors. decided on 24.7.2002 - 1986-2004 Consumer 7480 (NS) wherein compensation of Rs. 3,000 was given. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the case on hand as the telephone in the case cited by the learned Counsel remained out of order for several months and in spite of reminders it was not made functional.
6. Another case cited by the learned Counsel Amicus Curiae, The General Manager, Calcutta Telephones and Anr. v. Sh. Kamla Shankar Upadhaya III (2002) CPJ 53 (NC) -First Appeal No. 241 of 1995, decided on 1.4.2002 , 1986-2004 Consumer 7567 (NS), is also distinguishable from the case on hand, because in the cited case (supra) the telephone of the trader went out of order several times affecting adversely his business and there was also a question of disputed bills, hence Rs. 15,000 was directed to be paid as costs.
7. As we do not see any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, we are not inclined to disagree with the same. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.