Does it amount to Deficiency of service:

certainly it was deficiency in service what ever causes may be. BSNL is liable to compensate consumers first and it can sue on PWD for recovery of same.

Dear Dr.Tripathi,

                                Under Clause 1 of section 19-A of the Indian Telegraph act, 1885, any person though legallly competent to exercise a right but if it is likely to cause damaged to a telegraph lines or post.................. shall give not less than one month's notice in writing to the telegraph officer....

                               Clause 2: The magistrate on the application of the Telegraph authority, order such person to abstain from dealing with such property.........

                             Section 25-A. Injury or interference with telegraph lines or post punishable with fine.

                            Under the circumstances, is there deficiency of service? rather PWD is not only civially liable but criminally liable also: In the case in hand the claimant dfid not implead the PWD the necessary party to the case.

Though there are no Telephone Services to individuals persons , the defeciency is not on the part of the BSN - the Law prohibits the interference with the Lines . The Telephone  Services discontinued due to illegal Act of PWD Department . 

Dear assumi ji !

 thank you for quoting provisions . but I am still of the opinion that duty of care and maitenance lies with BSNL as being owner of cable and service provider.

any third party found resposible for disruption may be punished and held liable to compensate the loss suferred by BSNL in recieving revenue or giving compensation / damagas to consumers. it is not cosumer's resposibility nither he is competant , to have all informations  about correspondences between two departments. a consumer pays charges, he is entitled to undisrupted service.

Dear Dr.Tripathiji,

                                       With due respect to your observations in the matter: I would like to point out that the law of torts is different from the penal laws. The penal statues is so strict in our country that the benefit goes to the accused when there is doubt in the statues which is  capable of two interpretations. The Telegraphs act of 1885 is very clear regarding the Jurisdictions and the penalty provisions for its violations under the act. Yes, there is duty of care, but in the same manner the statues direct that notice be given for precautionary measures to be adopted towards the Telegraph authority. Can any department act in violation of this proviasions and blame the BSNL etc and put up a defence of duty of care under the law of Torts? The answer must be in the negative.Any beneficial act can not over ride the statues and says that it is a beneficial Act, and free to over ride any statues! Thank you so much for your englithen contributions and awaiting more response from you for the benefit of all of us.

thanks dear assumi !

I will review my opinion and will comunicate if there is any change.

Dear Dr.Tripathi,

                                   Honestly speaking, I am not happy with the provisions: as we can not expect all our country man and woman to know the law and in this manner they would be deprived of their rights to address their legal rights. Among the common man and woman in a State like Nagaland, who knows about the Indian telegraph act, though they may know telegraph post or electric post, and if something happened to them should the Court say go to the Arbitrators as per section 7-B of the act. Time to have a freash look at the 18th Century Act.

also there should be new approach to presumtion about knoledge of law.

shri prabhat ji ! it is a case by subscriber of telephone