A consumer cannot be forced to adopt another connection when there was no bona fide reason to stop the existing landline connection.

ORDER

S. Coari, Member - The present appeal has been directed against the judgement and order 25.3.2009 passed by the learned District Forum, Birbhum, Suri, in C.F. Case No. CC/29/2008 wherein the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in part on contest against the OP with a direction for restoration of the telephone line of the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 500.

2. The case of the complainant before the learned District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant has been enjoying land telephone facilities at his residence since 1994. The complainant experienced frequent disruption of connection for non-maintenance of the telephone line at the instance of the OP. In spite of repeated requests the OP has not restored the telephone connection of the complainant and ultimately closed the same forever. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such arbitrary acts on the part of the OP/appellant the petition of complaint was filed.

3. The OP/Appellant contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that about 4 kms. of overhead line passes through a dense forest and as there was frequent theft of overhead telephone line at the instance of some miscreants it was not possible for the OP/Appellant to ensure continuous connection to the complainant. The OP requested the complainant to convert his line into WLL connection for better service which the complainant did not agree. The OP was not at fault for closer of telephone connection of the complainant as things were beyond the control of the OP and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. The learned District Forum after appreciating the case of respective parties has observed that there was no bona fide explanation as to what prevented the OP to restore the telephone connection of the complainant inasmuch as the request of the OP to resort to WLL connection was quite unjustified. There was enough scope for betterment of the telephone line of the complainant at the instance of the OP which the OP has not adopted for reasons best known to it. It was not incumbent upon the complainant to shift to a new connection which was expensive and was not favourable to the requirement of the complainant. For abrupt closure of the telephone line of the complainant has caused inconvenience to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service at the instance of the OP and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the learned District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.

Decision with Reasons

5. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that it is an admitted position that the concerned overhead line passes through a dense forest for about 4 kms. and due to frequent theft of overhead line at the instance of the miscreants, there was disruption of telephone connection of the complainant. Due to some unavoidable situation it was not possible on the part of the OP/Appellant to ensure regular and continuous telephone connection to the complainant. The difficulty was a practical difficulty in its true sense. There was alternative and better scope of availing telephone connection by the complainant through WLL connection which for reasons best known to the complainant, he has not accepted, for which the OP got nothing to do and under such circumstances, there cannot be any deficiency in service at the instance of the OP. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellant, when there was alternative arrangement to the complainant thereby ensuring better and flawless enjoyment of telephone connection, it was not just and proper on the part of the complainant/Respondent to refuse the same and having refused the same the complainant