Procedure of BSNL regarding redressal of customer complaints and time frame of closure of such complaints - action taken on complaint regarding non functioning of telephone - CIC: disclose file notings relating to action taken & breakup of cheque issued
1. Rajeev Vasudeva Son of Late Sb Madan Lal Vasudeva, permanent resident of 32/1 Canal Road, Kishanpur, Dehradun, at present residing at New Delhi with my present communication address as above, wish to seek information, under the RTI Act, 2005. The information needed pertains to the complaint of my old telephone number, since surrendered, as per details given below: -
1. I had lodged two complaints dated 16/06/2007 and 14/09/2007 regarding non functioning of my above referred telephone Number and thereafter followed up with your department regarding non attendance to the same - due to which I could not utilize the services.
2. I had also claimed the adjustment of the rentals for the period I had not been able to utilize the services.
3. After being fed up following up with your department and not having received any acknowledgment / redressal of my complaint, I had to finally request for cancellation of the referred connection on October 5, 2007, nearly five months after my first complaint.
4. Thereafter, I have been constantly corresponding with your department, expressing my concern, seeking proper reply, (the matter was even referred to as a case for Telephone Adalat, but remained unresponded) but the department never ever bothered to respond / acknowledge my letters till date.
In this connection, please confirm as follows —
1. The procedure of your department in redressal of the customer complaints.
2. The time frame of closure of such complaints from the customers.
3. The compensation to be paid to the customers who have lodged their complaint and in case the same is not closed within the specified timelines.
4. The procedure of handling the inward correspondence.
5. Whether various correspondence(s) sent by me were marked to the concerned official for redressal ? If so what action was taken?
6. Whether any such correspondence was acknowledged and if so, when and by what mode? Please provide the necessary proofs. If not, why?
7. The role of Telephone Adalats and the time frame for redressal/closure of customer complaints by such Adalats.
8. Whether my case was considered fit for consideration — both by the department and or by the Telephone Adalat? If yes, why no action was taken? If not, why was the same not closed with due intimation? Please provide reasons.
9. Who are the various level of officers who are required to attend to such cases and what action has been taken /proposed to be taken, against them, if any?
10. If no action is taken I proposed to be taken, grounds on which such decision is taken/ to be taken.
11. Clarifications to my letter dated April 7, 2009 - Case for Telephone Adalat.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not given the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Vasudeva
Respondent: Mr. P S Martolia CPIO through VC
It is noted that this matter was registered as a Complaint no CIC/BS/C/2012/000219 whereas it should have been treated as a Second appeal and accordingly file no CIC/BS/A/2013/002805 has been assigned and is being decided as an appeal. The CPIO stated that the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 08/01/2010 has been provided vide letter dated 16/09/2010. The appellant stated that his telephone remained out of order for long period and he had lodged several complaints and had also moved the lok adalat and wants to know the action taken on his complaints. He further stated that the respondent have allowed a rebate for 12 days and he wants to know on what basis the rebate has been allowed and what action the respondent took during the period from 2007 to 2010 when his telephone was not working properly.
After hearing the submissions of both the parties the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the following:
(i) The file notings relating to the action taken on the appellant complaints dated 16/06/2007 and 14/09/2007.
(ii) The basis on which the rebate for 12 days has been allowed.
(iii) Copy of the order passed by the lok adalat.
(iv) The file notings regarding the action taken by the BSNL during the period 2007 to 2010 when the appellant’s telephone was not working properly.
(v) Complete breakup of the cheque of Rs.1025/- issued to the appellant.
The above information should be provided to the appellant, free of cost, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Rajeev Vasudeva v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/C/2012/000219+CIC/BS/A/2013/002805/4219