BSNL customer wins compensation: Man gets Rs 15,000 over landline that remained dead for years after telecom firm 'produced no evidence'

A customer whose landline went dead in May 2011 has finally seen BSNL's appeal against a compensation order dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which found that the telecom company had not produced a single piece of evidence to back up its own defence, as per TOI.

The complainant, Goutam, had been using a telephone connection registered in his late father's name in Dewas district. The service stopped without warning on 20 May 2011. Despite repeated complaints and a formal application sent through his advocate, the line was never restored.

BSNL's explanation was that underground cable serving the connection had been severely damaged during the construction of a six-lane road, making repairs impossible. The company said it had offered Goutam an alternative WLL (Wireless in Local Loop) connection, which he had turned down.


BSNL also argued that the consumer forum had no jurisdiction over the matter, contending that telephone service disputes should go to an arbitrator rather than a consumer commission.

District commission rules against BSNL

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dewas rejected BSNL's arguments in 2017 and partly allowed Goutam's complaint. It directed BSNL to restore the connection within two months, pay Rs 15,000 as compensation, and pay Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs, with 12 per cent annual interest applicable in case of delayed payment.

BSNL challenged this order before the state commission.

State commission finds no merit in BSNL's appeal

A bench comprising President Sunita Yadav and Member Dr Monika Malik examined BSNL's claims and found them unsupported by any documentary evidence.

As reported by the Times of India, the commission noted that BSNL did not produce any document identifying which road's construction had damaged the cable, or any proof establishing that the damage was beyond repair. The only document submitted was a cable diagram, which the commission said did not amount to proof that a WLL proposal had ever been sent to Goutam or received by him.

The bench also addressed BSNL's argument about the WLL alternative. It said a customer cannot be compelled to accept a WLL connection in place of a landline unless it is clearly established that no other option was possible. The commission further noted that BSNL could not even clarify whether a WLL connection was capable of providing all the services a landline could.

The commission also pointed to the pattern of BSNL's conduct, observing that Goutam had complained repeatedly but received no response, indicating that the telecom company had simply ignored his grievances.

Concluding that Goutam had proved deficiency in service on BSNL's part, the bench held that the district commission had made no error in ruling in his favour. BSNL's appeal was dismissed as without merit. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs for the appeal proceedings.

(With TOI inputs)