Click the Play button to listen to article

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising President C. T. Sabu and Member Ram Mohan R., has held Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) liable for deficiency in service after a subscriber's landline telephone remained non-functional for approximately 18 days due to optical fibre cable-laying work.

The Commission observed that the service provider's failure to restore the connection within a reasonable period caused inconvenience and mental agony to the subscriber and directed BSNL to pay compensation and litigation costs.

Facts:

The complainant, T.R. Pushpangadhan, a resident of Anthikkad, Thrissur, was a subscriber of BSNL's landline telephone service. His telephone connection became non-functional on March 24, 2017, and remained out of service until April 11, 2017, for approximately 18 days.

The complainant alleged that the disruption was caused by cable-laying work in his locality and that BSNL failed to restore the telephone service within a reasonable period. He claimed that the prolonged interruption caused him inconvenience, hardship and mental agony. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, against the Divisional Engineer and General Manager of BSNL, seeking compensation and litigation costs.

Contentions of the BSNL:

In its written version, BSNL admitted that the complainant's telephone connection remained non-functional during the relevant period. It stated that the disruption occurred due to the laying of optical fibre cables, which affected approximately 300 telephone connections in the locality. BSNL further submitted that proportionate rental reductions had been granted to 11 subscribers who had submitted written requests.

BSNL denied any wilful deficiency in service, contending that the complainant was only an occasional user of the landline and also possessed a mobile phone. It further challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the dispute was required to be referred to arbitration.

Observation and decision:

The Commission held that the complaint was maintainable despite the availability of an arbitration remedy under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022), it observed that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies to consumers.

The Commission found that BSNL's failure to restore the complainant's landline service for approximately 18 days amounted to deficiency in service. It observed that the reason for disruption, namely optical fibre cable-laying work, did not absolve BSNL of its responsibility.

Rejecting BSNL's contention that the complainant was only an occasional user of the landline and also possessed a mobile phone, the Commission observed that a subscriber was entitled to receive the service for which he had subscribed. It further noted that a landline connection could also be required for receiving incoming calls and that its value could not be determined solely by the number of outgoing calls.

The Commission further observed that the complainant was entitled to a proportionate rental reduction for the period during which the service remained unavailable. However, it declined to issue a specific refund direction as the exact amount had not been quantified or established through evidence.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs within 30 days of receipt of the order. In case of non-compliance, both amounts would carry interest at 4.5% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realisation.

Tags: