ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 08.05.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.23/2016 title Prem Lal Sharma vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Prem Lal filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is senior citizen and is holder of telephone landline connection bearing No.01782-276825 and has installed BSNL landline and broadband connection about twenty five years ago in his premises for running his business smoothly. It is pleaded that complainant is running business to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. It is further pleaded that landline telephone and broadband service remained non-operative since April 2014. It is pleaded that complainant visited twenty times in the office of opposite parties but opposite parties did not provide proper service. Complainant sought relief of reinstallation of telephone and broadband connection. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 800000/-(Eight lac) for loss of his business. In addition complainant also sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental pain and agony. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that landline services were provided to complainant under Rural Combo Plan. It is pleaded that service remained interrupted due to land slide and cable theft. It is pleaded that necessary rebate has been granted to complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant was at liberty to avail GSM service. It is pleaded that complainant was suggested to avail wireless service of opposite parties. It is pleaded that wire line service was interrupted due to cable theft. It is further pleaded that exchanges working with less than 20 numbers was shutdown as per BSNL Corporate office guideline. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is senior citizen and deponent is holder of telephone landline connection bearing No.01782-276825. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is using broadband service of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that telephone was installed twenty five years ago. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent is using telephone and broadband facilities for the purpose of running his business to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is residing in the remote area. There is recital in affidavit that landline telephone of complainant and broadband service remained non-operative w.e.f April 2014. There is further recital in affidavit that matter was reported to opposite party but opposite party did not restore telephone service and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Ms. Anita Bhardwaj Assistant General Manager O/o. GMTD Shimla. There is recital in affidavit that landline service was provided to complainant under Rural Combo Plan and was not provided under business plan. There is recital in affidavit that landline service remained non-operative due to land slide and theft of cable. There is recital in affidavit that alternative mobile technology of internet service was available to complainant. There is recital in affidavit that telephone exchange was closed due to damage of cable wires and land slide. There is further recital in affidavit that alternative GSM service was available to complainant. There is recital in affidavit that an amount of Rs. 4742/-(Four thousand seven hundred forty two) has been refunded to complainant vide cheque No.880785 dated 07.09.2016. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties. 9. There is recital in affidavit that an amount of Rs. 4742/-(Four thousand seven hundred forty two) has been refunded to complainant vide cheque No.880785 dated 07.09.2016. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party be ordered to reinstall telephone and broadband connection to complainant is decided accordingly. Opposite party has pleaded that landline service and broadband service of complainant remained interrupted due to land slide and cable theft. Opposite party has pleaded that as per guidelines issued by BSNL Head Quarter all exchanges working with less than twenty numbers was ordered to be shutdown. Opposite party has pleaded that alternative GSM service is available to complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of the fact that alternative GSM service is available to complainant it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to order opposite parties to reinstall telephone service and broadband service of complainant. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf complainant that complainant is legally entitled for an amount of Rs. 800000/-(Eight lac) for loss of business is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that opposite parties offered alternative facility of GSM service to complainant but complainant did not avail the alternative service of GSM. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant could not be allowed to take benefit of his own laxity and inaction. No reason assigned by complainant as to why complainant did not avail alternative GSM service offered by opposite parties. Hence in view of above stated fact State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to order opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 800000/-(Eight lac) to complainant for loss of his business. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be ordered to pay compensation to complainant for mental pain and agony to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) is decided accordingly. It is proved on record vide annexure-C2 that opposite parties have issued bill to complainant for the period 01.08.2014 to 31.01.2015. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be ordered to pay compensation to complainant for mental pain and agony to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) is decided accordingly. It is proved on record vide annexure-C2 that opposite parties have issued bill to complainant for the period 01.08.2014 to 31.01.2015. State Commission has carefully perused bill issued by opposite parties placed on record during the period cited supra. Opposite parties have demanded recurring charges and tax charges from complainant qua period when landline telephone service and broadband service were non-operative. Opposite party has not claimed any usage charges from complainant during period of non-operation of telephone facilities. It is also admitted by opposite parties in affidavit that BSNL landline service and broadband service remained non-operative since April 2014. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties were not legally entitled to issue bill to complainant when service of BSNL landline and broadband remained non-operative. By way of issuing bill to complainant for the period when service of landline and broadband remained nonoperative opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for compensation because complainant was forced to approach learned District Forum and State Commission for redressal of his grievance. See 2002(1) CPJ 261 Delhi Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Mohd. Shakir. See 2003(II) CPJ 161 Delhi Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Suresh Kumar. See 2005(III) CPJ 173 West Bengal Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Pankajani Paul. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled to litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) is decided accordingly. Complainant did not place on record Advocate fee receipt however it is held that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation charges from opposite party. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that landline telephone and broadband connection remained non-operative for two years and eight months due to land slide and cable theft and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have issued bill to complainant during the period when landline and broadband connection remained non-operative. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have issued bill to complainant during the period when landline and broadband connection remained non-operative. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by way of issuing bill to complainant when landline and broadband remained non-operative for two years and eight months. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that bills are generated automatically from the system till telephone number was not permanently disconnected and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that all systems are controlled by human beings and it is held that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by way of issuing bills to complainant for the period when landline telephone and broadband connection remained non-operative. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that opposite parties have already refund an amount of Rs. 4742/-(Four thousand seven hundred forty two) vide cheque No.880785 dated 07.09.2016 and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have paid an amount of Rs. 4742/-(Four thousand seven hundred forty two) to complainant on 07.09.2016 and present consumer complaint was filed by complainant on 30.12.2015 before learned District Forum. Opposite parties have paid an amount after filing of consumer complaint by complainant before learned District Forum. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties are legally entitled for adjustment of paid amount. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order passed by learned District Forum is set aside. Lump sum compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand) is granted to the complainant from opposite party No.1 along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization. It is further ordered that in addition opposite party No.1 would also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay entire amount on concept of vicarious liability. It is further ordered that an amount of Rs. It is further ordered that in addition opposite party No.1 would also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay entire amount on concept of vicarious liability. It is further ordered that an amount of Rs. 4742/-(Four thousand seven hundred forty two) already paid by opposite parties to complainant vide cheque No.880785 dated 07.09.2016 would be adjusted in the principal amount. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.