1

IN THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY

SERVICES, KHURDHA, AT:-BHUBANESWAR
PLA CASE NO. 57/ 2020

Applicant:
Deba Kumar Rath, Aged about 47 Yrs, S/O Prafulla Kumar Rath , Resident
of Plot No. 345,A1, Merril Homes, Baramunda Village, PS:-Khandagiri,
Bhubaneswar,Dist.:-Khordha-752003.Mob:-9937014583

Respondents:-
1. Chief General Manager (CGM), Odisha Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited. (BSNL), Door Sanchar Bhawan, Unit-9, Near Sahid Nagar
Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khordha, Odisha – 751022.
2. S.D.O, Telecom, BSNL SDO Office, Telephone Office Lane, Baramunda
Village, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khordha, Odisha – 751003 Mob: 9437025111
TERMS OF POSSIBLE SETTLEMENTOF THE
DISPUTEFORMULATED UNDER SECTION 22 (C) 7 OF THE
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT1987
Despite receipt of notice and chances being given, respondents have not furnished
their written objection/statement before this forum. However, looking to the
pleadings and documents relied upon by the applicant Shri. Deba Kumar Rath
this forum finds an element of settlement to be decided on the basis of
conciliation. The points on which the possible settlements need to be considered
are as follows:
a) The applicant is a domestic consumer/ subscriber of telephone as well as
broadband having telephone No. 0674-2354435 vide consumer A/C No.
8007873152 with telephone as well as broadband facility in his premises.
He has been paying regularly the bill along with the consumption charges to
the respondent. Though the telephone was installed on 1st March 2019, it
was charged on 3rd March 2019 and broadband was activated after 15 days
of installation.
b) In the mid of September 2019, the said telephone connection was disrupted
and despite several and repeated complaints it was not restored for at least
15 days. Being harassed, the applicant approached the office of the
 2

Respondent No. 1 and the same was also futile. Then he lodged one
complaint through the customer care (1500) of the Respondent Telecom
Company on 6th of October 2019 and fortunately the issue of grievance was
resolved on 10th November 2019. Though the connection was restored, the
internet service was not working perfectly. And it became completely dead
in the last week of November.
c) Without using the telephone and internet from last week of September
2019, the applicant was paying the bill upto March 2020 with a hope that his
telephone connection will be restored one day. But in the month of March,
amid outbreak of Covid 19 and the exigency raised out of it, the applicant
stopped paying the bill.
d) Then after, the respondents have never tried to restore the telephone
connection of the applicant. Even they never cared to return the amount
over paid and the amount deposited as security.
e) As the act of the respondent company is violating the public utility services
and infringing the fundamental right of the applicant, he filed the
complained before this forum.
f) Further, it is to be made clear that if the parties fail to settle the matter as per
the term of possible settlement formulated above, then in that case this
Adalat/forum would pass a detailed award/judgment keeping in view the
observations as already made by this Adalat/Forum towards the issues
involved in this case and the relevant findings as arrived at by this Adalat
/Forum in that event respondent-Company may be further directed to bear
the amount of compensation claimed by the applicant so also higher interest
for their laches in not settling the claim in due time.
g) And in case both parties reach at an agreement in respect of the term of the
formulated terms of possible settlement of dispute then both are required to
submit their observations and shall sign the settlement of agreement on.

Thus this order is passed in exercise of the power U/S 22 C (7) of the legal
services authorities act, 1987.

Member Chairperson