NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and upheld an order directing it to restore a customer’s telephone connection and pay him Rs 15,000 in compensation, after finding that BSNL failed to provide any proof to support its claim that the connection could not be repaired.What was the case?Goutam was using a telephone connection registered in his late father’s name in Dewas district. From 20 May 2011, his telephone service was suddenly discontinued. He complained to BSNL and even sent a formal application through his advocate asking for the connection to be fixed, but it was never restored.BSNL on its defence said that the underground cable serving the connection had been badly damaged during the construction of a 6-lane road, and that it could not be repaired.The company said it had offered the complainant a WLL (Wireless in Local Loop) connection instead of the landline, but he had refused it. BSNL also argued that the consumer forum had no authority to hear the matter, since disputes over telephone services should go to an arbitrator instead.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dewas, rejected this defence and partly allowed Goutam’s complaint in 2017, directing BSNL to restore his connection within the next two months, pay him Rs 15,000 as compensation, and pay Rs 2,000 towards case expenses, with 12 per cent annual interest if the payment was delayed.The BSNL challenged this order before the state commission.What did the commission say?A bench comprising President Sunita Yadav and Member Dr Monika Malik noted that BSNL had failed to back up its own defence with any evidence. The commission pointed out that BSNL did not produce any document showing which road’s construction had damaged the cable, or any proof that the damage could not be repaired.The commission added that the only document BSNL submitted was a diagram of the cable, which did not prove that BSNL had actually sent the complainant a proposal for a WLL connection or that he had received it.The bench further said that a customer cannot be forced to accept a WLL connection instead of a landline unless it is shown that no other type of connection was possible, and noted that BSNL was also unable to clarify whether all landline services could be provided through a WLL connection.The commission also pointed out that the complainant had repeatedly complained to BSNL about his telephone, but received no response, showing that BSNL had paid no attention to his complaints.Concluding that Goutam had successfully proved deficiency in service on BSNL’s part, the commission held that the District Commission had committed no error in ruling in his favour, and dismissed BSNL’s appeal as without merit. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs for the appeal.
