Case: General Manager BSNL Vs Narsinha Prasad Gupta (Saha) S/o Lt. Bagina Gupta (Saha). West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

A.K. Ray, Member, (West Bengal)

1. The District Forum, Malda by its order dated 5.8.09 passed in case no 62 of 2008 allowed the complaint filed by Sri Narsinha Prasad Gupta (Saha) on contest without cost. An order of restoration of telephone connection no 230207 at his residence was also made along with an order of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation against the OPs who were jointly and severally directed to restore telephone connection of the Petitioner and also to pay compensation as above within one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Appellant (General Manager, BSNL, Malda) has preferred the instant appeal.

2. The case in brief is that the Complainant/ Respondent herein is a consumer of domestic telephone no ALMP 230207. All the bills have been paid by him. But of late his telephone started giving him troubles. Pre-recorded voice asked him to meet the Account Officer as his telephone service has been withheld. This was informed to the authority but in vain. On 05.08.08 his telephone was disconnected without any reason. He was put to extreme difficulties for not being able to contact anybody. He is a senior citizen and disconnection put him into difficulties and hardship in contacting persons. He informed the matter to the Appellant herein who was OP No-1 before the Forum below on 08.08.08, but the problem continued. Hence, the case before the Forum below.

3. Written version was filed by the OP, BSNL authority. All the material allegations contained in the complaint were denied. The contentions of the OP was that the telephone was in active condition as on 5.8.08. The petitioner had paid his outstanding telephone rent to the post office of Alampur which did not reach the BSNL authority at Malda. The Complainant should have shown the paper relating to payment to A.O.T.R, BSNL, Malda in order to avoid the one way connection which was effected on and from 20.05.09. The allegations of disconnection on 5.8.08 was misconceived. As per Exbt-1 (b) the Petitioner paid the telephone bill dated 8.7.08 for Rs. 257/- through post office of Alampur on 8.7.08. The line was disconnected on 5.8.08 obviously after payment of the aforesaid bill in question. The contentions of the OP that they received the amount showed deposited by the Complainant at a later stage does not if so facto change the complaint of the Petitioner that in spite of making payment before the appropriate authorized authority his line was disconnected. Late...