DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

BSNL told to pay Rs 5,000 relief

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Our Correspondent

Advertisement

Sundernagar, May 1

While allowing a complaint against the BSNL, the Bench of Consumer Forum, Mandi, headed by its president, has penalised the General Manager, BSNL, Mandi, and SDO, Phones, Mandi. They were ordered to pay an amount of Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation cost to a complainant for late replacement of defective telephone set.

Advertisement

The forum ordered that the amount had to be deposited by the BSNL firstly and it might recover the amount from the officials who were responsible for not rendering services immediately to the complainant.

As per the complaint filed by Lawan Thakur, a resident of Mandi, he was a consumer of BSNL. His phone set developed some defect and he lodged a complaint with BSNL officials. A BSNL lineman visited his house and after checking the telephone said it was required to be changed so he should contact the SDO, Phones, Mandi. When he contacted the SDO, Phones, his phone set was not changed, but an old phone was given to him, which was also defective. He made many requests to replace the defective phone, but nothing was done.

Advertisement

So he prayed for issuing directions to the BSNL and also prayed for grant of compensation.

The BSNL said the complaint of Lawan Thakur was attended and the defective set was changed. It was alleged that the complainant could have got new phone after paying Rs 600 (cost of new phone), which he did not pay, so was not entitled for a new phone.

The forum observed that as per the affidavit filed by the SDO, Phones, the phone was replaced on March 30, 2016, while the complaint was filed on August 17, 2015. The BSNL did not care to replace the defective telephone for more than six months, which amounted to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act and held that the compensation had to be given to the complainant.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts