State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/08/420



DATE OF FILING : 04.11.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.04.2009


APPELLANTS



1. JTO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Broad Band Cell (Behala Parnashree)

Kolkata-700 060.

2. DE, Internal Behala,

Behala Telephone Exchange,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Behala.

Represented by Divisional Engineer

(Consumer Forum) Calcutta Telephones,

B.S.N.L. being the authorized representative of the Appellants.



RESPONDENTS/O.P.S



Kashinath Mondal, Gonipur, Maheshtala,

Gonipur Road, District- 24 Parganas (South)

Kolkata-700 141.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.R.Baksi, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. U.Bhowmik, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 15.9.08 passed by Ld. South 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in C.C. no. 39 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the petition of complaint with a direction upon the OP, BSNL, to refund Rs. 1220/- to the complainant and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-.

The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the Complainant was a customer of BSNL/OP and he enjoyed telephone facilities under the Ops. Thereafter the complainant also enjoyed Broad Band facilities as per Free Trial Scheme of the Ops for two months. Subsequent to that the telephone line of the complainant got disconnected due to non-payment of bills. The complainant paid the said bills and applied for reconnection along with Broad Band connection. The complainant observed all the formalities in this connection and though the telephone connection was restored, but the complainant did not get any Broad Band facilities. In spite of that the Ops sent bills thereby charging for the Broad Band connection. The complainant requested the OP/BSNL for redressal, but the OPs did not pay any heed, which compelled the complainant to institute a complaint case before the Ld. Forum below.

The Ops appeared and contested the case by filing written objection contending inter alia that due to some technical difficulties the Broad Band connection could not be afforded by the complainant which was purely unintentional. The Ops admitted the mistake in this connection and assured adjustment of the amounts in subsequent telephone bills and also undertook to refund Rs. 1220/-.

The Ld. Forum while disposing of the case has observed that when BSNL/Ops admitted their fault and acknowledged their incompetency, which, according to the Ops, was a technical defect, and considered the case in a lenient manner against the Ops and directed the Ops to refund Rs. 1220/- and also awarded litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 2000/- in favour of the complainant.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellants/BSNL has submitted before us that in this case it is an admitted position that there were some mechanical defects in computing the bills of the complainant/Respondent, which has resulted in raising some non-existent bills. According to the Ld. Advocate, BSNL has already started adjusting the excess amount so raised in this regard and also has admitted the amount to be refunded to the complainant/Respondent by the Appellants. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has urged before us that when the Appellants were ready and willing to refund the amount and also in a way admitted the incorrectness of the bills so charged due to some technical defects, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to award the cost of Rs. 2,000/-. According to the Ld. Advocate, the approach of the Ld. District Forum was not in accordance with the actual state of affairs and the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to the awarding of litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant/Respondent.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and also gone through the materials on record and the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is an admitted position that due to some technical fault, some non-existent consumption bills were sent to the complainant by the BSNL authority. Though the complainant never enjoyed Broad Band facilities, but yet the Appellants went on sending bills for Broad Band connection and ultimately the complainant was forced to take recourse to legal redressal. We have also considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants, according to whom, when the Appellants were willing to refund the excess amount so charged and considering the fact that the whole episode was due to some technical laches, the Ld. Forum below should not have burdened the Appellants with litigation cost. But we are not inclined to accept such proposition. A concern like BSNL with all India standing should not have done so and in this regard, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum took a lenient view against BSNL and has awarded litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- only in favour of the complainant/Respondent. We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. Forum blow in this regard and we also take note of the fact that in this regard the Ld. District Forum has duly considered the pros and cons of the respective parties’ cases and has arrived at a just and proper decision which should not be interfered with through the present Appeal. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.

Hence, ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned order of the Ld. Forum below is affirmed. The Appellants are directed to comply with the order of the Forum below in toto within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 10% (ten per cent) per annum for the period of default.



MEMBER MEMBER