Rebate In Rent Does Not Absolve Broadband Service Providers From Deficient Service, Kerala State Commission Holds BSNL, Telecom Exchange Liable

Brief Facts:

Ms. Vineetha R. Kottai ("Complainant") subscribed to a BSNL Broadband service in 2015 through Mokeri Telephone Exchange. The service encountered persistent issues from June to December 2018. Despite repeated requests for repairs, the Complainant's concerns were left unaddressed by the BSNL's General Manager. Upon contacting Mokeri Telephone Exchange when the internet failed, she was informed that repairs could only be conducted on July 4, 2018, due to the absence of the Junior Telecom Officer on leave. Despite waiting until July 6, 2018, for the promised repair, no action was taken. Consequently, the Complainant lodged a written complaint with the Junior Telecom Officer, receiving no response. Following this, she contacted the General Manager of BSNL in Kozhikode. In the meantime, the landline connection also became dysfunctional.

While the broadband connection was briefly restored on July 25, 2018, it malfunctioned again on the same night. Furthermore, from June 30, 2018, onwards, it completely ceased to function. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, Kerala ("District Commission").

The District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant, directing BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 25,000/-. Dissatisfied with this decision, BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange filed an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala ("State Commission").

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

The General Manager of BSNL and Junior Telecom Officer of Mokeri Telecom Exchange argued that due to the distance of the Complainant's premises from the exchange (5.5 km), disturbances in the cable line were likely. They asserted that obtaining permission from the local authority for repair work involving extensive excavation of public roads was challenging and financially unviable for a single party. Further, eligible rebates in rental charges were granted to the Complainant for the faulty period, and the cable was replaced in December 2018. They denied any deliberate negligence on the part of BSNL and sought the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission found that the Complainant's version remained on account of the evidence provided by her. Furthermore, BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange (“Opposite Parties”) failed to provide any evidence to support their contentions. It was noted that the Opposite Parties did not assert that the Complainant was a defaulter at any point in time.

The State Commission observed that there was clear evidence of dereliction (deliberate negligence) on the part of the Opposite Parties in addressing the Complainant's concern to restore the internet connection and telephone facility. Merely providing an undertaking that the Complainant was eligible for a rebate in rent did not absolve the Opposite Parties of their responsibility for deficient service.

Despite the Opposite Parties' claims about the distance between the telephone exchange and the Complainant's premises, it was noted that the Complainant had paid the requisite charges for the services without default. The Opposite Parties were fully aware of this distance when providing the connection, thus they could not claim feasibility issues in rectifying defects due to distance.

As a result, the order of the District Commission was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: General Manager BSNL Kozhikode vs Vineetha R. Kottai

Case No.: First Appeal No. A/109/2022

Advocate for the Appellants: Maya R. Mani

Advocate for the Respondent: Party-in-Person

Click Here To Read/Download Order