The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a recent ruling, held telecom giants BSNL and Mokeri Telephone Exchange accountable for their failure to provide satisfactory internet and telecom services. The commission asserted that a simple assurance of rent rebate during the period of faulty service does not exempt BSNL and Mokeri from their responsibility.
In 2015, Ms. Vineetha R. Kottai became a subscriber of BSNL Broadband through Mokeri Telephone Exchange. From June to December 2018, she faced recurring service issues. Despite her consistent requests for repair, BSNL’s General Manager overlooked her concerns. Even when the Junior Telecom Officer was on leave, and the internet service collapsed, she was told the repair could only be carried out on July 4, 2018. By July 6, with no action taken, she lodged a complaint in writing to the Junior Telecom Officer, but received no response. Meanwhile, her landline service also stopped working.
While the broadband service was temporarily restored on July 25, 2018, it broke down again that same night. From June 30, 2018, the service stopped functioning entirely. Frustrated by this, Ms. Kottai lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, Kerala. The District Commission ruled in her favor, ordering BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange to pay her Rs. 25,000/- in compensation. Not satisfied with this decision, BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala.
BSNL’s General Manager and Junior Telecom Officer of Mokeri Telecom Exchange argued that disturbances in the cable line were likely due to the 5.5 km distance between the exchange and Ms. Kottai’s premises. They maintained that it was difficult and not cost-effective to get permission from local authorities for extensive road excavation required for repair work. They also stated that they had provided suitable rent rebates to the complainant for the faulty service period and replaced the cable in December 2018. They denied any intentional negligence and requested the dismissal of the complaint.
The State Commission rejected the arguments of BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange. They found Ms. Kottai’s claims to be validated by the evidence she provided. The Commission also noted the clear evidence of deliberate negligence by BSNL and Mokeri Telecom Exchange in addressing Ms. Kottai’s concerns. The mere promise of rent rebate did not absolve them from their obligations.
The commission also pointed out that the complainant had been paying the required charges for the services regularly. Knowing the distance between the exchange and Ms. Kottai’s premises when providing the connection, the telecom companies couldn’t later argue about feasibility issues in fixing defects due to distance. Consequently, the State Commission upheld the District Commission’s order and dismissed the appeal.
In summary, this judgment serves as a reminder to service providers about their duty towards their customers. Simply offering a rebate does not compensate for the inconvenience caused by their deficient services. Service providers must ensure that they deliver what they promise, irrespective of the challenges they may face.
