Years of complaints fail to restore dead landline, BSNL ordered to pay Rs 17,000

“The complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. We find no error in the order passed by the District Commission. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed,” the state commission said on June 29.

According to the complaint, a landline number registered in the name of the complainant’s late father suddenly became non-functional on May 20, 2011. The consumer alleged that he repeatedly contacted BSNL and requested restoration of the connection, even issuing a legal notice, but the telecom company failed to respond or rectify the fault. Left without any remedy, he moved the consumer forum in 2012.

BSNL blamed road construction

Defending its actions, BSNL contended that the underground cable had been extensively damaged during the construction of a six-lane road, making restoration of the landline impossible.

It further claimed that the complainant had been offered a Wireless Local Loop (WLL) connection as an alternative, but he declined the proposal. BSNL also argued that disputes relating to telephone services should be adjudicated through arbitration and not by consumer forums.

After examining the evidence, the district consumer commission partly allowed the complaint on September 21, 2017. It directed BSNL to restore the landline connection within two months, pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony caused by the prolonged disruption, and Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs.

The commission also ordered that if the amount remained unpaid beyond two months, it would carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the order until payment.

State forum’s findings

• The state commission noted that BSNL failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that the underground cable had actually been damaged during road construction or that restoring the landline connection was impossible.
• The telecom company also failed to establish that it had ever communicated the alleged offer of a WLL connection to the complainant. Importantly, a consumer cannot be compelled to accept an alternative service merely because the service provider chooses to offer one.
• Unless it is proved that restoring the original service is impossible, the consumer remains entitled to receive the service for which he had originally subscribed.
• BSNL had also failed to demonstrate that the proposed WLL connection would provide all the facilities available through the existing landline service.

BSNL’s appeal dismissed

The state commission noted that BSNL failed to address the complainant’s repeated requests for restoration of the telephone connection, which clearly established a deficiency in service and justified the relief granted by the district forum. Finding no legal or factual infirmity in the earlier order, the state forum dismissed BSNL’s appeal.

Why the ruling matters

The ruling reiterates that utility service providers cannot evade liability by making unsupported claims about technical difficulties. If a company seeks to deny or discontinue a service, it must back its stand with credible evidence. The decision also reinforces that consumers cannot be forced to accept substitute services without proof that the original service cannot be restored, strengthening accountability of public utilities under consumer protection law.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Madhya Pradesh: 0755-2559778, 0755-2559993) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.