C.C.NO.273/2009
Monday, the 21st day of December, 2009
V.Chandrasekaran, 1A/5, Vaiyapuri nagar, Kurumbapalayam,
Sarkarsamakulam, Coimbatore-641 107. --- Complainant

Vs.

The Chief Principal Manager, BSNL,

Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43. -- Opposite Party


This case coming on for final hearing before us on 10.12.09 in the presence of Thiru J.V.George, Authorised representative for complainant and of Mr.P.Ashok kumar, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to keep the internet connection in tact always for use, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000 towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant has obtained an internet connection bearing telephone 2669276 on 29.4.08 from the opposite party for his own use but the purpose of obtaining the internet connection is not served and frequently became dead and inoperative. In one occasion the complainant willfully not paid the bill amount claimed by the opposite party at once the opposite party disconnected the service and thereafter the reconnection was effected vide letter dt.1.6.09. Inspite of notice from the Consumer Association so far no suitable action is taken nor any reply is sent to the Consumer Association. The opposite party is the head of the department and controlling all the exchanges within the Coimbatore Telecom Switching area so he is answerable to the complaint for the deficiency committed by them. Hence this complaint.

The counter Statement filed by the opposite party are as follows:

2. This petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law and on facts on merits. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint against the opposite party, since it was already decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dt.1.9.09 rendered in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 filed by this opposite party that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred.

3. It is true that the complainant was provided with the facility of Broad band in his premises. The telephone number allotted to the complainant is 2669276. But the other avertments that from the date of internet connection it was not functioning properly and that particularly during the day hours either it will be dead or it will not connect to the activity and that this has been reported several occasions to the local authorities and that no fruitful action were taken are all false and frivolous and invented for the purpose of filing the case against the opposite party.

4. The irregular payment by the complainant himself was admitted by him in para 4 of his complaint which states that he has willfully not paid the bill amount claimed by the opposite party which resulted the disconnection of the service. As per the accounts maintained by this opposite party which was finalized on 9.9.09 it is only the complainant who owes a sum of Rs.792 to this opposite party towards the usage charges of the broad band and telephone. (Details given in counter para 6) BSNL had deputed the JTO to look in to the matter and after inspection it was found that the distribution cable in the subscriber area and neighbouring was affected by the Municipal/Panchayat agencies because of the digging and road widening etc. done by them and the cable fault was also subsequently attended. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

5. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavits along with documents Ex.A1 to A9 was marked on side of the complainant and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite party.



The point for consideration is

1. Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum in view of sec.7(b) of the Telegraphic Act?

2. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1 & 2:-



6. The learned counsel for the opposite party brought to the notice of this Forum the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009)8 Supreme Court cases 481 General ManagerTelecom Vs.M.Krishnan & Another. In this ruling it has been held that in view of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, there is an implied bar, to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, thereby, ousting the jurisdiction of this Forum.

7. The relevant observations in the judgement reads “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred”.

8. Article 141 of Constitution of India mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts, within the territory of India which includes the Tribunals and Consumer Foras.

9. For the abovesaid reasons, the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable, before this Forum and the complainant has to seek his remedy under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the Arbitrator who is to be appointed, by the Central Government. As such it is decided that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this Forum and the points are decided accordingly.

10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to take action u/s.7B of Telegraph Act for the same cause of action. No costs.

Consumer Complaint No.01 of 2008

Monday, the 01st Day of December,2009.

R.Manivannan.

S/o.N.S.Ramanathan.

Solar Power Traders,

2nd Floor, RMK Towers,

Perambalur. … Complainant
-Versus-
1 .The Principal General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Contonment ,Trichy-1.

2.BSNL-CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE,

Near RDO Office,

Perambalur.

3. Chief Account Officer,TRA-(PAU)

O/o PGM ,BSNL.

Contonment ,Trichy-1.



4.Asst.Public Information Officer,

Divisional Engr(ADMN),

Contonment ,Trichy-1.



5.General Manager (Admin),

O/o CGM,BSNL-Tamilnadu circle ,

Chennai.



6.The Chief General Manager & Appellate Authority,

BSNL,Anna salai,

Chennai. …. Opposite Parties
2
1) Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

2) This complaint coming for hearing before us on 1st Day of December, 2009 in the presence of Thiru, K.Kumar Counsel for Complainant and S.P.Ganesan Counsel for opposite parties and after hearing. and perusal of documents having stood over for our consideration, till this day and, this Forum passed the following.



ORDER

3) Brevity of Complaint: The complainant was provided land line Telephone No 2275750and Broadband service. He was regularly paying the bills. He received a bill on 09/02/2007 for the month of January 2007, for the use of telephone usage of 13 GB amounting Rs, 10,800/-. It is exorbitant. He has taken up

the matter to the 2nd opposite party about the wrong billing and also complaint about the noise coming from the telephone, which make him unable to use. The 2nd opposite party directed to contact the 1st opposite party, accordingly he contacted and explained. On 24/02/2007, the 3rd opposite party replied that the bill is correct. The usage of Broadband is not from his telephone. He had taken up the matter again to the public grievance cell, but there was no response, and the complainant was asked to pay the bill. Somebody has used the Broadband from some end. The opposite party has not made investigation. The complainant approached several time, the 1st opposite party to provide uninterrupted telephone service, but the opposite party provided. local call, facility and denied STD.

4) The Broadband theft continued even during February 2007. The opposite party not, corrected the noise telephone, but deducted the Broadband theft; I asked the internet usage from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party directed me to contact 4th opposite party for my letter under Right to information Act. The 5th

-3-

opposite party replied to my letter. The 5th opposite party stated in his letter dated 11/06/2007, that the Broadband usage by other phones cannot be obtained, because in perambalur minitype DSLM of 48 port is provided. Undetectable Broadband theft it self is deficiency of service. The complainant filed appeal to the 6th opposite party. He disposed off the appeal in a routine manner. The complainant requested the1st opposite party several times to restore the telephone with STD and Broadband, but the 1st opposite party neglected. Due to the act of 1st opposite party he lost reputation, Good will, apart from incurring monitory loss, loss of energy. The complainant filed this complaint to direct the 1st opposite party to provide secured Broadband connection with traceability of theft, to provide details of use by the complainant during the month of February 2007,to provide noise level to

use the phone to provide customer service in perambalur, to return the money paid for January 2007,and February 2007, to restore STD and Broadband till the dispute is resolved and to direct to pay Rs,1,00,000/- as damages.

4) Gist of version of opposite party:

The telephone charges are calculated based on the meter reading available on the equipment kept in the exchange and the charges for Broadband is levied based on the usage of net service under the scale of GB/MB. The complainant failed to pay the bills dated 06/02/2007, and 06/03/2007, therefore his telephone was disconnected. The complainant agreed to pay the bill in installment, and his telephone was reconnected on payment of 1st installment on 09/04/2007. As per the terms, he agreed to pay excess MB chares apart from upload and download charges through his application. The complainant is avoiding payment by inventing flimsy reasons.

-4-

5) The complainant used 13024MB for the bill dated 06/02/2007,and 20460MB for the bill dated 06/03/2007.There is no excess or exorbitant bill. He can see usage in his computer. He filed the complaint with mollified intention. The password is used by a customer to protect his account, and it is not possible to know others. The engineers are not known his password. The full usage details chart was supplied to him. The speed of his internet connection was increased to 2MBs from 01/01/2007;the complainant might have downloaded heavily. The telephone service rules are not applicable to Broadband service. Both the rule are separate.

6) The technical possibility to use the Broadband from other telephone is given as a reply to his quarries under Right to information Act, and itself is not

applicable to his case. His password cannot be used by others fraudulently. The telephone connection is liable to be disconnection for non payment of bill. His telephone connection also was disconnected for non payment of bill. He later agreed to pay by installment. On 09/04/2007, he paid the 1st installment and the telephone was reconnected. The authorities provided 95 facility to his telephone to avoid loss to the department. The advance payment for Broadband and the excess billing were adjusted in his credit. The allegation of theft of Broadband is imaginary. The noisy fault was rectified and restored on 11/02/2007, after changing the cable pending clearance of his telephone bill the Broadband connection could not be effected. The allegation of Broadband and excess billing are false. There is a due of Rs,27930/- to be paid by him. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.



-5-

7) Based on the allegation of the complaint and the version of opposite party: The following points arise for consideration.

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service relating to the Broadband connection and telephone connection of the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief to direct the opposite party to provide secure Broadband with facility to trace theft or pilferage.

3) Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief to direct the opposite party to furnish details of telephone used the Broadband of the complainant?

4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief to direct the opposite party to provide noiseless phone?

5) Whether the complainant is entitled the relief to direct the opposite party to constitute customer service in perambalur?

6) Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of excess amount allegedly collected from him?

7) Whether there can be a order to honour Arbitration related by 1st opposite party?

8) Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs,1,00,000/- as damages for his hardship and mental agony?

8) Point No, 1The counsel for opposite party raised his objection for maintainability of the complaint before this forum, based on the Judgment of the Apex court ruled in General Manager Telecom… Appellant Vs M. Krishnan and

-6-

another, where in in it is stated that a complaint is barred in the consumer forum in view of section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885(2009 (5) CTC 62).

9)The complainant appeared in person relived an order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur in CC No , 180 of 2009, and submits that the newly enacted Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 is applicable to this case and not the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, since the Broadband service has been provided from 2006 onwards.

10) I considered the Arguments and the authorities relived on both side. The opposite parties also taken the same view, as presented by the complainant, in their counter. At Para 4, from lines 11 to 16 it is stated as follows.

“It is further intimated that the Broadband services and

Telephone services are entirely different and the rules

applicable to telephone services in respect of excess metering

complaints as referred by the complainant does not apply

Broadband services. The above rule dated 09/04/1986, was

framed in respect of Telephonic services and the Broadband

services were introduced only during 2006”

When a separate rule is governing the service of Broadband connection as admitted by the opposite party the counsel cannot rely the ruling in 2009 (5) CTC page No 62. The definition u/s 2 (K) Telecommunication service of The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 attracts the Broadband services. Hence I

-7-

decide that this complaint is not falling under section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885, and the complaint is maintainable before this forum.

11) The allegation of the complainant is that he received Telephone bill for the month of January 2007, along with for internet usage of 13 GB costing Rs, 10,800/-. The complainant said that it is exorbitant, and the Telephone was dead for some days and was noisy. He further said that it was misused at some end and theft continues till February 2007, when he received the bill for the subsequent month. The opposite parties stated that they raised bill for the usage as per meter reading

and also based on the usage of Broadband by the complainant and the usage is from his telephone. The opposite parties relived their side documents 6,7,8, but it is not the disputes.

12) The controversy raised by the complainant is that somebody used his Broadband using phone number, in stealthy manner. So the question to be decided is, is it possible to commit theft of Broadband service?. The complainant relived the answer given to his question raised under right to information Act, A9. The opposite party said that, unless the password is known to other person. It is not possible to commit theft of Broadband service, the same fact is impressed in A9, also. The opposite party 3 in his letter A 11 stated that during January 2007, the complainant used 13 GB during February 2007, and during the period the system was not in any fault. This letter is based on Exhibit B8.

13) The opposite party filed the details of Broadband usage by the complainant as Exhibit B16. The perusal of B16 shows the uploaded and downloaded are taken by using Manivannan. The uplink, and down link

-8-

particulars are filed by the opposite party as Exhibit B7. The subscriber record card is marked as Exhibit B4.These documents shows that, the Broadband attached to the Telephone of the complainant is used by him using his user id R.Manivannan. But when the complainant asked the particulars of internet download and upload, the senior Sub Divisional Engineer through Exhibit A13 stated that “ It is found that usage is from small DISLAMS. Hence further post cannot be identified. if user ID is still alive and on line, then we can trace the port of DSLAM by logging in to BRAS at that moment of time. And these details are not stored saved support details of above mentioned user Id cannot be provided.”

14) There is a clear finding that the Broadband was working in a small quantum, without the user id, of the complainant. It is also the finding of the opposite party that the port is not traceable in minitype DSLAM which is installed in perambalur. It is stated in the letter dated 01/09/2007, of the opposite party 6. During the period of disconnection of Broadband it was in usage, but the opposite party not able to trace the user. Therefore, we decide that somebody has been using the Broadband service of the complainant and the opposite party has not able to trace the user. It is a clear case of deficiency in service.

15)Point No,2.

There is no dispute in respect of the status of complainant as consumer. The interest of the consumer shall be protected from the possible theft or pilferage etc. Even a consumer is entitled to get secured Broadband service, the complainant is also one among them. I answer this point accordingly.

16)Point No,3. The Broadband service is functioning with out using the id of the complainant at a small quantity. It may be instrument fault or usage by

-9-

some other end. So a report of a Technical expert has to be obtained to measure, and arrive the actual usage during January and February 2007. Hence there is a direction to carryout the actual measurement deducting the theft, or pilferage or leakage if any in the instrument. The complainant is entitled for that relief.

17) Point No,4.

The complainant is seeking the relief to provide telephone without noise or the bearable noise of the instrument. The opposite party submitted that it was a

cable fault and the cable was changed. They also said that, There was no complaint before January or after February. Therefore the relief is not necessary at this stage.



18) Point No,5.

The complainant is seeking a relief to constitute consumer service facility in perambalur. It is purely a administrative policy. This court cannot give such a direction. The complainant is not entitled for that relief.

19) Point No,6.

The opposite party stated that, the excess payment was credited in his account. The various items of excess payment is narrated at Para 5 of the version. Once the excess payment is adjusted in his account he is not entitled for refund. we answer the point accordingly.
20) Point No,7.

-10-
The complainant not narrated the Arbitration proceeding intiated by the 1st opposite party. When the arbitrator was appointed, the complainant shall state who was the arbitrator, and what was the subject for arbitration, but those are silent in the complaint. The relief itself also a interiam measure. The complaint itself attains finality. Hence the relief become infractions.

21) Point No,8.

In the result the complaint is allowed partly with cost of Rs,1,000/-.

The opposite party committed deficiency in service by not providing secured Broadband connection, and retrieving uploaded and downloaded data’s used by the complainant exclusively from his apparatus. The allegation that he incurred monitory loss for travelling in order met the officials and also suffered mental agony, has got substance. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs, 10,000/- to the complainant.

The complainant is entitled to get the secured Broadband service, free of service or pilferage.

The opposite party is directed to pay the damages and the service with in 60 days.

In respect of other relief the complainant stands dismissed.

C.C.CASE NO.172 /2008
SRI BHOLANATH SAHA

5,DULALGANJ PATTY LANE,

P.O.BHADRESWR,

DIST.HOOGHLY. …. PETITIONER

-VS-
1) CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,

CALCUTTA TELEPHONES,

BSNL,KOLKATA-1

2) SR.ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR)

CALCUTTA TELEPHONES,

BSNL,BARABAZAR,

CHANDERNAGORE,

DIST.HOOGHLY. …. OPP.PARTIES



Present : D.K.Basu …. President

R.Roychowdhury

Malakar … Member

S. Basu …… Member.

Date of delivery of Judgement : 5.1.2010

The fact of the complainant’s case in brief is as follows :

Sri Bholanath Saha, the complainant has filed this case against the Ops namely Op no.1, Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones, BSNL and Op no.2 Sr.Accounts officer (TR), Calcutta Telephones, BSNL, Barabazar, Chandernagore, District Hooghly alleging that the BSNL authority pursuant to the application of the complainant dated 2.9.2006 installed a telephone at his residence without providing STD facility though, he applied for connection of telephone on “One India Scheme”. On 5.9.2006 he contacted with JTO, Bhadreswar who expressed his inability and advised him to contact with Commercial officer, Srirampur. Accordingly, he contacted Smt.Sarmistha Dey, JTO and Mr.P.K.Halder, Commercial officer, BSNL, Serampur for providing STD facility. They expressed their inability though the complainant conceded to pay the difference of amount Rs.15,00/- through cheque or cash as admissible. He also brought notice this fact to the General Manager (Customer Relation), Calcutta Telephones, Kolkata, vide his appeal dated 6.9.2006 and requested to disconnect the telephone line, if STD facility could not be provided . He became interested to keep BSNL line only to avail STD facility on “One India Scheme”. On 23.9.2006 Bhadreswar Telephone Exchange over phone requested him to call at and on 25.9.2006 he met JTO and submitted the required documents for waivel of rental charges for the month of Sept. 2006 but no effect was found . On 4.12.2007 an appeal was made before G.M. (West), Calcutta Telephones, BSNL, Howrah for waiving the rental charges. He also applied for providing Broad band connection on 23.4.2008 and modem was connected in May, 2008 . The commercial Officer ,Serampur, was requested in his letter dated 25.10.2008 to switch over the Broad Band from H 250 to H 500C+ from the month of November, 2008 but the same was not complied with and a bill of huge amount of Rs.1296/- had been paid by him on 24.12.2008. Two years have since been passed but his grievance was not redressed. The matter in detail was brought to the notice of Accounts officer, Kolkata Telephones, Chandernagore, vide his letter dated 11.11.2006. The Accounts officer, BSNL, Chandernagore, on his letter dated 27.11.2006 intimated the complainant “after careful consideration by the competent authority it is decided to charge rent for the period in question as general category instead higher plan of One India category as the telephone was actually used by you during the period as general category”. Being aggrieved of he has filed the instant case with the prayer for passing an order to refund the excess amount charge as rental for Sept. 2006 with interest on Fixed deposit rate, refund over paid amount towards broad band charges for non conversion the BB from Plan H-250 to H-500C+ as well as excess payment of service tax and to provide a rental free land line connection as per notification, demurrage charge as well harassment charges @ Rs.10,000/- each for irregular dealings with him.

The Ops have contested this case by filing a written version whereon they have denied the material averments of the complaint alleging that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in regard to excess billing/charges. It has further alleged that the complainant applied for new telephone connection with STD facility under the said “One India” Plan on 2.9.2006 and under the said “One India”plan call charge is Re.1/- per unit at any place of India and this is only for land line phone. But petitioner was not provided STD at the time of installation of his telephone line because when as per office order petitioner is /was required to deposit Rs.2000/- as security for “One India” plan for STD, he deposited Rs.500/- only at the time of registration of his telephone. STD facility is provided after payment of first bill where security deposit is charged. But later on 28.9.2006 the complainant was provided STD facility on his request vide his application dated 25.9.2006 before receiving of the first bill . It has further stated that the complainant applied for Broad Band plan changed from H-250 to H-500C+ on 25.10.2008 and work order was issued on 27.10.2008 and the same was executed in the month of December, i.e. on 1.12.2008 from Broad band cell and that the due date /time for BB plan changed from BB H-250 to BB H-500C+is on 1.11.2008 i.e. lst day of next month. But as per office circular no. 64-03/08 Broad Band dated 22.10.2008 customers were permitted double Usage for free download on their existing plan for the month of November 2008 only as Dipawali Bonus, as such no effect was given for petitioner’s prayer for a new plan i.e. for conversion from BB H-250 to BB H-500C +. As per circular dated 22.10.2008 Dipawali scheme is /was extended/applicable only for BSNL Broad Band customers who have BSNL Broad band subscription continuously for past six months from 1.11.2008 had been paying. As the petitioner having telephone no.2633-6034 availed Broad Band connection with effect from 3.5.2008 i.e. less than six months , he was not entitled to get double usage benefit from Nov. 08. Broad Band plan H-250 was changed as H-500C+ from the month of December, 2008 (1.12.2008) . Broad band charges as plan H-250 upto November ‘08 was made accurately . No excess BB rent had been charged . Thus the question of refund cannot be entertained. The details of telephone charges has also been shown in the written version and the case is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.


1) Whether the Ops have any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get benefit as prayed for ?

FINDINGS WITH REASONS

Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.

The complainant has argued that he is not liable to pay any charge from 4.9.2006 to 26.9.2006. He will pay from the date when the STD facility will be given to him. The authority informed him on 26th/28th Sept. that the STD facility was given to him. As such, the BSNL authority may claim charge from that day. Prior to giving the STD facility the OP has charged ordinary rate as no STD facility as per his prayer was given. He is not liable to pay the ordinary rate. Besides, the sum of Rs.160/- paid by him has not been adjusted and thus, the OP have the deficiency in service.

The learned lawyer of the OP on the other hand has argued that STD facility is not given to the land line until the charge for first bill has been deposited. Rs.2000/- will deposited for the first bill but he has paid only Rs.500/- as security amount. However, as a special case without deposit of rest 1500/- rupees the STD facility was given to him. He has further argued that from the prayer of the complaint it is crystal clear that the disputes are raised as to billing /charges. Pursuant to Ruling AIR 1996 (Supreme court) 2476 the statutory remedy opened to him is one provided U/s 7B of the Telegraph Act. Thus, this forum has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute as to excess billing. He has also referred another ruling 1 (1996)CPJ 49 (NC).

The Ruling 1(1996) CPJ 49 (NC) provide as follows “deficiency in service –telephone-excess billing-average basis –no allegation of defective meter or of tampering with the connection by the employees of Dept. – District forum allowed complaint and reduce the bill on average basis – whether proper ? –(No).

Held : “The District forum as directed the petitioner to calculate the Telephone bills for the period from 25.1.92 to 25.9.92 on the basis of average of past one year preceding 26.1.92 and this in our view not legally permissible. This commission has repeatedly held that the Redressal forums are not legally justified to do so unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been tampering with or misuse of telephone by the employees of the Dept.”



It is admitted fact that the instant case has been filed for redressing the excess billing and other relieves.



In view of the above cited Ruling 1(1996) CPJ 49 (NC) we are of opinion that this forum suffers from lack of jurisdiction to settle the dispute raised in the complaint. The proper authority to settle the dispute has been enumerated in Section 7B of Telegraph Act

In view of the above findings, the case fails.

Hence ordered
That the instant case is dismissed on contest for want of proper jurisdiction.

Hand over a copy of the order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period .

Consumer Complaint No: 203/2008

Date of presentation: 12.12.2008

Date of decision: 08/01/2010

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. Shangru Ram, S/o Sh. Nanku Ram,

R/o Village Rudal, P.O. Chandi- Sewra,

Tehsil Arki, District Solan H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Through its General Manager/

District Telecom Manager, District Solan H.P.

…Opposite Party.

For the complainant: Mr. Atul Pandit, Advocate, vice

Mr. Vipen Pandit, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate, vice

Mr. R.S. Panwar, Advocate.
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he, is, subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.242564, which is installed at his native village. He avers that, he has no connection with any person residing out of State, hence, the bill dated 05.10.2007, amounting to Rs.2363/-, is excessive and inflated one, being not in consonance to the consumption. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-BSNL and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP-BSNL, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted that he is subscriber of landline telephone bearing No.242564, rather, it is denied that, bill in dispute amounting to Rs.2,363/-, is, inflated and excessive one. It is contended that the has been issued as per the mattered calls, hence, cannot be said to be inflated and excusive. As such, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP-BSNL, in issuing an excessive and inflated telephone bill amounting to Rs.2363/-. The OP-BSNL, has repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, that the bill has been issued as per the usage and as per the consumption, hence, exculpating their liability.

6. The complainant neither averred, that, the bill dated 05.10.2007, amounting to Rs.2,363/-, is, excessive and inflated one, owing to malfunctioning of the meter, nor has been able to substantiate that, the bill, so, generated by the OP-BSNL, is, the result of malfunctioning and misuse of his landline telephone by the officials of the OP-BSNL. However, the OP-BSNL, has placed on record the copy of the print out detailing therein the calls made by the complainant from his landline telephone, which remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed on behalf of the complainant, hence, has to be accorded sanctity, for want of adduction of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence in rebuttal by the complainant, to the aforesaid. Therefore, we have no hesitatin in concluding that the bill so issued by the OP-BSNL, qua usage of telephone bearing No.242564, amounting to Rs.2363/-, is, legal and valid. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant, is liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly, leaving the parties, to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Consumer Complaint No: 361/2007

Date of presentation: 10.10.2007

Date of decision: 06.01.2010

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Shiv Dayal Sharma S/O Shri M.L. Sharma,

Resident of Shiv Niwas, Annandale, Shimla-3, H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Limited,

through its General Manager (Mobile)

SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.

2. Proprietor, Gupta Electricals,

Alley No.11, Sant Niwas, Middle Bazar,

Shimla-171001.
… Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate vice

Mr. Pradeep Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Om Sharma, Advocate.

O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by Shri Rajesh Manta, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, the OP No.1, launched a scheme for providing mobile connection by paying a sum of Rs.112/- , with a talk time of Rs.100/- and validity was upto six months, hence, the complainant on, 08.03.2007, filled a form and submitted the same to the OP No.2, for obtaining connection, who after delivered the sim, to him, on, 23.03.2007, which was activated only on, 28.03.2007 and a balance of Rs.29.50 was shown and validity was upto 04.04.2007, whereas, his colleagues, who filled the form same day, got the sim card on the very same day was also activated on the same day, was shown balance of Rs.100/-. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, in its written version to the complaint, contended that sim card bearing mobile No.94186-94849 was issued to OP No.2, by the OP No.1, on, 22.03.2007, which was delivered to the complainant, on, 23.03.2007 by the OP No.1. They further contend that the sim was pre-active, hence, was to be activated just by dialing 123 and the scheme of full talk time of Rs.100/- with validly of 120 days was in force upto 27.03.2007, whereas, the complainant, got activated his sim, on, 28.03.2007, as such, he could not get benefit of the said scheme. The OP No.2, in its reply admitted the issuant of sim in the name of the complainant, on, 23.03.2007, well before the closing date of the scheme, and the operation was to be done by the complainant. Hence, it is, denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at, length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in not giving him the benefit of the scheme, so launched by OP No.1. However, the OPs, in their reply has categorically repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, the sim was delivered to the complainant, on, 23.03.2007, i.e. well before the expiry of the scheme, hence, is, seeking to exculpate their liability.

6. Undisputedly, the sim card was delivered to the complainant, on, 23.03.2007, whereas, the purported scheme, so launched by the OP No.1, was valid upto 28.03.2007. It is also not in dispute, that the complainant activated his mobile connection, on, 28.03.2007, i.e. after the expiry of the scheme. Though, the complainant, has averred that, the sim was activated by the OP No.1, on, 28.03.2007, yet, the OP No.1 in its reply under paragraphs 6 & 7, have categorically contended, that, the sim was to be activated by the complainant himself, by, dialing 123. Therefore, since, the sim was delivered to the complainant, by the OP No.2, on 23.03.2007, and it was to be activated by the complainant himself by dialing 123, hence, it cannot be said that the OPs, by not activating the sim, within the stipulated period, has indulged in an unfair trade practice.

7. Moreover, the complainant has not been able to adduce cogent, convincing and apposite evidence to substantiate the fact that the sim was to be activated by the OP No.1. Also, the complainant has not been able to repulse or rebut the contention of the OP No.1 under paragraphs 6 & 7 of its reply, that, the sim was not to be activated by his dialing 123, rather, it was to be activated by the OP No.1. Therefore, for lack of adduction of proof to above extent, it cannot be said that, their, was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As the sim was to be activated by the complainant himself by dialing 123, hence, his contention, that the sim cards of his colleagues purchased by them on the same day, was also activated on the same day, the purported non-activation of his sim card, cannot comprise deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, for, the reasons, that, his sim was to be activated, by, the consumer himself, which , he failed to do.

8. The result of the above, discussion, is, that there is no merit in this complaint and the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence, we have no hesitation, in, dismissing the complaint, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to the costs.

9. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

CC.No.14 of 2008

BETWEEN:

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (operations),

% G.M. Telecom, BSNL,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Complainant

and


M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited,

Regd. Office Helix House,

W-23 ICC PLot, Annanagar,

West extension,

Chennai-600 101. …Opposite Party

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 06.01.2010 Sri K.B. Prasad, advocate for complainant and of Sri A. Chenna Rao, Advocate for opposite party are having on record, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying a sum of Rs.96,761/- in all from opposite party and to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper.

The case in brief is that, the complainant herein is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and whereas the opposite party is M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited having its registered office at Chennai. The complainant called for sealed tenders for the year 2004-2005 for annual maintenance contract of computer hardware, Telegraph formatted terminals, PCO monitors ADVT 220 dump terminals from the interested parties.

Accordingly, the opposite party has submitted tender and as per specifications, rules and regulations an agreement was entered with certain terms and conditions. The validity of tender is for one year. As per conditions stipulated in tender document, opposite party should keep sufficient good quality spares with resident engineer to attend faults immediately. Besides, opposite party has to replace faulty components at free of cost, during AMC period along with other conditions. The complainant has entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 05-02-04. The opposite party has not attended some of the faults before expiry of tender period. The repairs were intimated to opposite party through the following letters listed herein for smooth functioning of the unit. The faults are to be rectified by the opposite party. The opposite party received some systems/printers/scanners from different field units to take up the fault rectification. The opposite party though promised to rectify them but did not return the same to complainant after rectifying the defects. The cost of those items were Rs.1,24,800/-. On 21-08-06, the complainant has addressed a letter to opposite party to return the equipment, failing which the same will be recovered from the pending bills and as well as security deposit. Thereafter, on 09-05-07, the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party to arrange payment of Rs.46,761/- after giving details of adjustment etc.

Instead of settling amount, the opposite party sent representation with vexatious pleas. Hence, complainant is constrained to file this complaint for deficiency of service, mental agony and also for other reliefs as detailed below:

1. For deficiency of service : Rs.25,000/-

2. Pain and agony in not attending the

work and thereby causing loss to complainant : Rs.25,000/-

3. Cost of the faulty equipments : Rs.46,761/-

-------------

Total: Rs.96,761/-
------------- Hence, the complaint.

The opposite party has filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guntur has entered into service contract with Helix Automation (P) Limited, Chennai vide letter No.OP-12/AMC/HW/2003-2004/37 dated 08-03-04 at Guntur. The company has successfully completed the contract. The happening can be briefed as below:

1. The contract agreement has to be reported to the SDE/Computer vide terms and conditions of agreement.

2. The opposite party has completed one year AMC successfully based on good performance, contract has extended for next 6 months.

3. The opposite party has received all service payment till the last quarter of service. If the services were poor or pending, they would not have certified bills for the payments.

4. It is submitted that the AGM/BSNL raised query of pending problem vide letter No.OP/12/AMC/tender/HW/2004-05/Vol I/127/22-02-2006 for which reply letter has been given.

5. A detailed reply with remarks/clarification along with BSNL Authorities certificate is submitted herewith.

6. Finally the quarter bill was at cheque writing stage, if pending works were there, none of the BSNL authority would have certified the bills for payment clearance.

7. It is submitted that some material (Wipro EX-2050 printer) logic Board, Digital CPU of Chebrolu has been returned in working condition, bed scanner adopter and Barcode scanner has been returned in faulty condition since those material does not come under the scope of contract. It was not returned back to BSNL because the process has been pending. But all the material was returned to the respective authority and letter has been received from them (dated 04-03-08 and 14-03-08). There is no such returnable material from Helix to BSNL, all the material has been returned. (copy of letter is filed).

8. The technical authority to certify the services was SDE /Computer or DE/Computer. AGM/OP is not the technical authority as per the terms and conditions. He is non technical person.

9. During the contract period there was follow up letters/explanation/certificates etc., with personal appearance to BSNL authority, but not even the subject has been entertained for a discussion. It was one sided presentation without looking into facts and evidence analysation.

The opposite party has to get the following payments from BSNL,

Pending bills of Helix :Rs.1,17,521/-

Security deposit :Rs. 40,000/-

----------------

Total: Rs.1,57,521/-

The status of above payment is about cheque writing stage. The opposite party is a genuine service provider who has rendered its services to the customers with high standards. Thus, there is no deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite party and on the other hand, the complaint is filed with unclean hands misleading the Forum with all false facts. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Both sides have filed their respective affidavits and also written arguments. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-10 are marked and on behalf of opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-14 are marked.

Now the points for determination are that,

1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency of service?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the sum as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- The AMC agreement entered in between the parties for the year 2004-2005 in Guntur vide Ex.A-1 and subsequent exchange of correspondence is the basis for just decision of the case. The opposite party has deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit, as per the conditions of agreement towards performance of contract i.e., providing service to the equipment maintained by BSNL in Guntur district for a period of one year. It is a contract of maintenance of computer hardware i.e, Telegraph formatted terminals, PCO monitors, ADVT 220 dump terminals, as per the rates quoted for each item in the list annexed to the agreement. The personnel of opposite party also got to attend the system whenever called upon by the unit officers of complainant. The concerned engineer has to report to the SDE(Computer), Superintending CTO, Guntur to carry out AMC. The opposite party also shall keep sufficient good spares with resident engineer and also to attend faults

immediately. The resident engineer of opposite party should have one item of each part as a spare with him, if they are unable to rectify the fault within a day, it has to arrange substitute equipment of the same. After arranging the substitute, the faulty equipment should be lifted. The faulty equipment should be returned within 5 days time. Agreement also provides that if the system is completely down for more than 5 days there shall be penalty of 1%. AMC charges for each day delay shall be collected from opposite party. Further, it has to replace faulty components at free of cost, except consumables which have become faulty during the AMC in the stipulated time. Complainant has to make quarterly payments after rendering satisfactory work under AMC. In brief this is mode and manner of performance of contract by the opposite party. It appears that the contract was extended for another 6 months till end of 31-12-05.

As seen from Ex.A-2 letter dated 22-02-06 that certain complaints have been received from the field officers of Guntur district SSA stating that quality computer systems/printers are still pending pertaining to the AMC period. Subsequently, reminders were also issued on this subject vide Ex.A-3 and other correspondence. The SDE, Guntur addressed a letter dated 03-05-06 vide Ex.A-4 to the AGM (OP) o/o General Manager, Telecom, Guntur stating that there were no pending computer peripherals hardware problems to be attended by M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited as on 31-12-05 and also all the pending bills were submitted for settlement. Ex.A-5 is the letter dated 05-05-06 addressed to opposite party showing the description of items of computer, nature of fault in different field units. As seen from this letter the fault has occurred in different filed units of complainant in the month of December, 2005 itself. Ex.A-6 is the letter dated 17-05-06 addressed to opposite party stating that certain items became faulty during the months of May, June, July and September, 2005 and requested to attend to the faulty systems. Ex.A-7 is the letter dated 25-05-06 addressed to opposite party reminding on the subject and to attend to the faulty systems in different filed units. In this letter total 32 items are shown of different fields. Ex.A-8 is another reminder dated 09-06-06 to complete the work by 30-06-06. Ex.A-9 is the letter dated 21-08-06 addressed to opposite party requesting him to return the systems/printers/scanners taken for repair in good working condition failing which the opposite party will be black listed. This letter also mention earlier reference from 03-05-06 onwards till 09-06-06. As a last resort the opposite party requested to return the equipment before 04-09-06 failing which the cost of equipment i.e.., Rs.1,24,800/- would be recovered. Ex.A-10 is the last letter dated 09-05-07 addressed to opposite party wherein a sum of Rs.46761/- was claimed as equipment cost after adjusting the pending bills and security deposit amounting to Rs.1,57,521/- which is payable to opposite party. This apart the other correspondence on record which is not marked shows nil report from various field units addressed to AGM (OP) o/o GM, Telecom, Guntur. This goes to show that their equipment maintained in respective filed units are not in faulty condition. These reports are obtained from time to time from the filed units.

As against the above correspondence shown by the complainant, the opposite party relied upon the following correspondence. Ex.B-1 is the letter dated 23-01-06 addressed to the complainant in which it is stated that when the contract was entered during April, 2004 there has been no procedure of handing over equipment but to inspect at every location and repair the faulty equipment. They have also submitted inspection report of each unit which were in non working condition. All the units have been made into the contract “as is where is condition” and it has been forced to take up the services for non working units. Irrespective of above fact, during completion of AMC services, they have taken all steps in handing over all the equipment in working condition. When their person visited the unit for handing over the material neither the concerned person from the Department (BSNL) available nor the new vendor has responded to accompany them. Since there is a wide area of coverage required, their person could not travel many times to those single locations. Therefore, they requested that to comply handing over process to the computer centre people at the earliest on their arrangement of one exclusive person. It is also informed that they would not be responsible for breakdown calls, which are taken place after date of expiry of contractual period.

Ex.B-2 is the another letter dated 09-02-06 shows that the list of articles noted therein from different fields would be handed over back within a period of 10 days and thereby they would be completing handover procedure. In this letter in total 13 items are mentioned with the remarks on each item. Ex.B-3 is the letter dated 25-08-06 under which they have up dated the information.

(I) That they inspected 80% of the all the locations listed as faulty in the correspondence made by the BSNL

(II) 50% of the items are not available in the respective locations and the concerned officials state that it has been sent to the stores or to the SDE (computers).

(III) The available materials in respect of locations have been rectified.

(IV) Some locations like Chilakaluripet and Narasaraopet does not have any status about the availability of the materials.

It is requested to assist them in handover process and also to release all the due payments to them including security deposit since they had detailed discussion with SDE (computers) who had assured them for arranging defective materials. Ex.B-4, B-5 and B-6 is the similar correspondence on the subject. Ex.B-7 is the letter dated 04-04-06 wherein it is intimated about completion of pending materials. This letter also indicates that after exchange of correspondence in between the parties, the following conclusion has taken place on behalf of both parties.

1. SDE (Computers) will take responsibilities in inspecting all the units in the specified time limit and submit the reports to the DGM-URBAN and Helix for further rectification if any.

a. The above action has been completed on mutual grounds. The DE (Computers) and Helix has agreed for the rectification of the minimum listed problems.

2. After completing the above mentioned problems the DGM/URBAN and SDE (Computers) has assured that the pending payment related to the total contractual services will be released within 30 days maximum, from the date of completion of the above and subsequently the security deposit will also be released in the same period.

3. DGM-URBAN will clarify the queries of the AGM(OP) and further instruct the necessary steps for the clearance of the pending payment and security deposit.

4. Meeting will be organized between Helix and AGM (OP) to get the clarification of the current payment status.

5. After the above meeting Helix can proceed the rectification.

As a genuine AMC vendor we hereby conclude that we are ready to solve all the problems which might not be genuine towards us, but for the sake of better customer satisfaction and long term relationships, it has been hereby wanted for further instruction from your end after which we will be completing the pending list for which you will be releasing all the due payments in the committed time span along with the security deposit.

As seen from Ex.B-9, B-10 and B-11 further correspondence took place in between the parties on the above subject. Ex.B-12 is the another letter dated 29-06-07 addressed to the DGM/planning & Administration, M/s BSNL, Guntur, in which it is stated that they have completed their contractual services on 31-12-05 and also received due payment for more than 1½ year on their services on the certificate of SDE (computers) and other respective in charges personally. It is also informed that they handedover all the materials according to the instructions of SDE/computers/DE computers on more than 4 occasions. Thereafter, there was a request letter from AGM/OP Department with certain listed items for which they have once again completed all the formalities during the months of August and September, 2006 and submitted a detailed report. After completion of 1½ years, now the AGM/OP Department says that there is huge penalty value has been arrived. After continuous and repeated discussion AGM/OP Department has not considered the certificates issued by respective in charges /SDE/Computers/DE-Computers for release of payments. Further, it reads that finally they received letter dated 09-05-07 which informs that Helix has to pay Rs.46,761/-, in this connection they have already submitted relevant documents. This apart they are also ready and willing to discuss the matter and sort out the differences amicably in personal meeting if required. Ex.B-13 is the letter dated 04-03-08 addressed by the SDE, Computers to the AGM/OP o/o GM, Telecoms, Guntur wherein it was informed that certain items listed therein were returned by the service engineer of Helix Automation(P) Limited. This shows that out of 4 items 2 items were returned in working condition on 22-2-07 and other two items in faulty condition. It is also mentioned therein that Bed Scanner Adopter (item No.3) is not covered by AMC. There is no remark about Bar Code Scanner which was returned on 04-03-08 on faulty condition. It is not understood from this letter if three items were returned in the month of February, 2007 the clearance letter is written by SDE, computers on 04-03-08. Ex.B-14 is the another letter dated 14-03-08 addressed to AGM/OP, O/O G.M., Telecom, wherein it is informed that digital system at Sl.No.2(811001120) was returned by M/s Helix Systems (P) Limited, Chennai in working condition on 22-02-07.

This complaint was filed on 31-12-07. The remaining items pending with the opposite party were returned on 04-03-08 and 14-03-08 (vide Ex.B-13 and B-14). Prior to that the opposite party has returned printers, scanners and other equipment lifted from different places on 09-02-06 vide Ex.B-2. On 21-12-06 vide Ex.B-6 while returning the items after due rectification they also requested for processing pending bills and return of security deposit. The present complaint simply speaks that the opposite party has received some systems/printers/scanners from different field units to take up the fault rectification but not returned the same. The cost of such items is shown to a tune of Rs.1,24,800/-. The complainant requested for return of equipment vide letter dated 21-08-06 failing which the cost of items would be recovered from the pending bills and as well as security deposit. Lastly, it sent a registered letter on 09-05-07 claiming in all a sum of Rs.46,761/- after adjustment of cost of equipment out of pending bills and security deposit. This apart it also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony aggregating in all Rs.96,761/-.

The aforesaid correspondence made by the opposite party reveals return of equipment which were lifted from different field units of complainant. It is also a fact that on satisfaction of their job the period of contract was extended for further 6 months. The complaint is silent as to description of equipment which is not returned. They did not specify the name of equipment and its cost, the total cost claimed at Rs.1,24,800/-. It is not made clear that how long they used the equipment and whether they deducted any depreciation in the cost. The complainant also failed to file rejoinder denying return of equipment with its specific description.

In its written argument, it is mentioned that the opposite party has lifted the items without arranging the substitute arrangements. With regard to applicability and non applicability of AMC it is mentioned that if AMC is not applicable for 29 items, they should not have lifted and kept with them for such a long period. Further, it is mentioned that as per their own version/statement they returned faulty equipment only after expiry of the AMC. This itself shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in attending the faults and returning the items. Lastly it is stated that there is huge delay in returning those items after expiry of AMC period.

Whereas, in the written arguments filed by opposite party it is alleged that at no time either during the contract period of AMC or its extended period the penalty clause is invoked which goes to show that they have extended satisfactory service and now the complainant have raised the penalty to a tune of Rs.1,29,417/- which is not sustainable at all. It is also made clear that all the materials were returned to the complainant as per letter dated 04-03-08 and 14-03-08 and there is no such returnable material pending with them. It is also stated that the materials as claimed by the complainant against which the penalty is levieble, were lifted after expiry of contract period out of mutual consent between the parties. In view of prudence of service and more so, the said materials are not covered by AMC contract as they were lifted after expiry of contractual period. Lastly it is stated that there are pending bills to a tune of Rs.1,17,521/- and security deposit of Rs.40,000/- aggregating in all Rs.1,57,721/- which was at the cheque written stage but they were held up deliberately. They also deny that there is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on their part.

Having considered the material on record including the written arguments filed by both sides, we are of the view that no returnable items were pending with the opposite party out of contractual obligations and as such no cost of equipment is recoverable from the opposite party. The complainant has failed to establish its case in the manner pleaded by it and that it is entitled for a sum of Rs.96,761/- after adjustment of Rs.157,521/- payable to opposite party. However, we find some lapses on the part of opposite party either in attending to the faulty items at various locations in rendering prompt and quick services and also delay in delivering the lifted items. To this extent, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party which can be suitably compensated in terms of money to the complainant.

Thus, we feel it appropriate to fix sum of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering. In all the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.30,000/-. The rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed. We also make it clear that the opposite party is eligible for refund of its amount viz., Rs.1,17,521/- towards pending bills and Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit in all Rs.1,57,521/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering to the complainant.

2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation.

3. The opposite party is also eligible for refund of its amount as stated in concluding para of this order.

4. The aforesaid amount payable by the opposite party either shall be paid directly within a period of one month or in the alternative it shall be adjusted out of the amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party. Order accordingly.

CC.No.14 of 2008
BETWEEN:
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (operations),

% G.M. Telecom, BSNL,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Complainant

and

M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited,

Regd. Office Helix House,

W-23 ICC PLot, Annanagar,

West extension,

Chennai-600 101. …Opposite Party
This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 06.01.2010 Sri K.B. Prasad, advocate for complainant and of Sri A. Chenna Rao, Advocate for opposite party are having on record, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R
Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying a sum of Rs.96,761/- in all from opposite party and to pass such other order as deemed fit and proper.

The case in brief is that, the complainant herein is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and whereas the opposite party is M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited having its registered office at Chennai. The complainant called for sealed tenders for the year 2004-2005 for annual maintenance contract of computer hardware, Telegraph formatted terminals, PCO monitors ADVT 220 dump terminals from the interested parties.

Accordingly, the opposite party has submitted tender and as per specifications, rules and regulations an agreement was entered with certain terms and conditions. The validity of tender is for one year. As per conditions stipulated in tender document, opposite party should keep sufficient good quality spares with resident engineer to attend faults immediately. Besides, opposite party has to replace faulty components at free of cost, during AMC period along with other conditions. The complainant has entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 05-02-04. The opposite party has not attended some of the faults before expiry of tender period. The repairs were intimated to opposite party through the following letters listed herein for smooth functioning of the unit. The faults are to be rectified by the opposite party. The opposite party received some systems/printers/scanners from different field units to take up the fault rectification. The opposite party though promised to rectify them but did not return the same to complainant after rectifying the defects. The cost of those items were Rs.1,24,800/-. On 21-08-06, the complainant has addressed a letter to opposite party to return the equipment, failing which the same will be recovered from the pending bills and as well as security deposit. Thereafter, on 09-05-07, the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party to arrange payment of Rs.46,761/- after giving details of adjustment etc.

Instead of settling amount, the opposite party sent representation with vexatious pleas. Hence, complainant is constrained to file this complaint for deficiency of service, mental agony and also for other reliefs as detailed below:

1. For deficiency of service : Rs.25,000/-

2. Pain and agony in not attending the

work and thereby causing loss to complainant : Rs.25,000/-

3. Cost of the faulty equipments : Rs.46,761/-

-------------

Total: Rs.96,761/-

Hence, the complaint.


The opposite party has filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guntur has entered into service contract with Helix Automation (P) Limited, Chennai vide letter No.OP-12/AMC/HW/2003-2004/37 dated 08-03-04 at Guntur. The company has successfully completed the contract. The happening can be briefed as below:

1. The contract agreement has to be reported to the SDE/Computer vide terms and conditions of agreement.

2. The opposite party has completed one year AMC successfully based on good performance, contract has extended for next 6 months.

3. The opposite party has received all service payment till the last quarter of service. If the services were poor or pending, they would not have certified bills for the payments.

4. It is submitted that the AGM/BSNL raised query of pending problem vide letter No.OP/12/AMC/tender/HW/2004-05/Vol I/127/22-02-2006 for which reply letter has been given.

5. A detailed reply with remarks/clarification along with BSNL Authorities certificate is submitted herewith.

6. Finally the quarter bill was at cheque writing stage, if pending works were there, none of the BSNL authority would have certified the bills for payment clearance.

7. It is submitted that some material (Wipro EX-2050 printer) logic Board, Digital CPU of Chebrolu has been returned in working condition, bed scanner adopter and Barcode scanner has been returned in faulty condition since those material does not come under the scope of contract. It was not returned back to BSNL because the process has been pending. But all the material was returned to the respective authority and letter has been received from them (dated 04-03-08 and 14-03-08). There is no such returnable material from Helix to BSNL, all the material has been returned. (copy of letter is filed).

8. The technical authority to certify the services was SDE /Computer or DE/Computer. AGM/OP is not the technical authority as per the terms and conditions. He is non technical person.

9. During the contract period there was follow up letters/explanation/certificates etc., with personal appearance to BSNL authority, but not even the subject has been entertained for a discussion. It was one sided presentation without looking into facts and evidence analysation.
The opposite party has to get the following payments from BSNL,

Pending bills of Helix :Rs.1,17,521/-

Security deposit :Rs. 40,000/-

----------------

Total: Rs.1,57,521/-

----------------

The status of above payment is about cheque writing stage. The opposite party is a genuine service provider who has rendered its services to the customers with high standards. Thus, there is no deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite party and on the other hand, the complaint is filed with unclean hands misleading the Forum with all false facts. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Both sides have filed their respective affidavits and also written arguments. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-10 are marked and on behalf of opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-14 are marked.

Now the points for determination are that,

1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency of service?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the sum as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- The AMC agreement entered in between the parties for the year 2004-2005 in Guntur vide Ex.A-1 and subsequent exchange of correspondence is the basis for just decision of the case. The opposite party has deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit, as per the conditions of agreement towards performance of contract i.e., providing service to the equipment maintained by BSNL in Guntur district for a period of one year. It is a contract of maintenance of computer hardware i.e, Telegraph formatted terminals, PCO monitors, ADVT 220 dump terminals, as per the rates quoted for each item in the list annexed to the agreement. The personnel of opposite party also got to attend the system whenever called upon by the unit officers of complainant. The concerned engineer has to report to the SDE(Computer), Superintending CTO, Guntur to carry out AMC. The opposite party also shall keep sufficient good spares with resident engineer and also to attend faults

immediately. The resident engineer of opposite party should have one item of each part as a spare with him, if they are unable to rectify the fault within a day, it has to arrange substitute equipment of the same. After arranging the substitute, the faulty equipment should be lifted. The faulty equipment should be returned within 5 days time. Agreement also provides that if the system is completely down for more than 5 days there shall be penalty of 1%. AMC charges for each day delay shall be collected from opposite party. Further, it has to replace faulty components at free of cost, except consumables which have become faulty during the AMC in the stipulated time. Complainant has to make quarterly payments after rendering satisfactory work under AMC. In brief this is mode and manner of performance of contract by the opposite party. It appears that the contract was extended for another 6 months till end of 31-12-05.

As seen from Ex.A-2 letter dated 22-02-06 that certain complaints have been received from the field officers of Guntur district SSA stating that quality computer systems/printers are still pending pertaining to the AMC period. Subsequently, reminders were also issued on this subject vide Ex.A-3 and other correspondence. The SDE, Guntur addressed a letter dated 03-05-06 vide Ex.A-4 to the AGM (OP) o/o General Manager, Telecom, Guntur stating that there were no pending computer peripherals hardware problems to be attended by M/s Helix Automation (P) Limited as on 31-12-05 and also all the pending bills were submitted for settlement. Ex.A-5 is the letter dated 05-05-06 addressed to opposite party showing the description of items of computer, nature of fault in different field units. As seen from this letter the fault has occurred in different filed units of complainant in the month of December, 2005 itself. Ex.A-6 is the letter dated 17-05-06 addressed to opposite party stating that certain items became faulty during the months of May, June, July and September, 2005 and requested to attend to the faulty systems. Ex.A-7 is the letter dated 25-05-06 addressed to opposite party reminding on the subject and to attend to the faulty systems in different filed units. In this letter total 32 items are shown of different fields. Ex.A-8 is another reminder dated 09-06-06 to complete the work by 30-06-06. Ex.A-9 is the letter dated 21-08-06 addressed to opposite party requesting him to return the systems/printers/scanners taken for repair in good working condition failing which the opposite party will be black listed. This letter also mention earlier reference from 03-05-06 onwards till 09-06-06. As a last resort the opposite party requested to return the equipment before 04-09-06 failing which the cost of equipment i.e.., Rs.1,24,800/- would be recovered. Ex.A-10 is the last letter dated 09-05-07 addressed to opposite party wherein a sum of Rs.46761/- was claimed as equipment cost after adjusting the pending bills and security deposit amounting to Rs.1,57,521/- which is payable to opposite party. This apart the other correspondence on record which is not marked shows nil report from various field units addressed to AGM (OP) o/o GM, Telecom, Guntur. This goes to show that their equipment maintained in respective filed units are not in faulty condition. These reports are obtained from time to time from the filed units.

As against the above correspondence shown by the complainant, the opposite party relied upon the following correspondence. Ex.B-1 is the letter dated 23-01-06 addressed to the complainant in which it is stated that when the contract was entered during April, 2004 there has been no procedure of handing over equipment but to inspect at every location and repair the faulty equipment. They have also submitted inspection report of each unit which were in non working condition. All the units have been made into the contract “as is where is condition” and it has been forced to take up the services for non working units. Irrespective of above fact, during completion of AMC services, they have taken all steps in handing over all the equipment in working condition. When their person visited the unit for handing over the material neither the concerned person from the Department (BSNL) available nor the new vendor has responded to accompany them. Since there is a wide area of coverage required, their person could not travel many times to those single locations. Therefore, they requested that to comply handing over process to the computer centre people at the earliest on their arrangement of one exclusive person. It is also informed that they would not be responsible for breakdown calls, which are taken place after date of expiry of contractual period.

Ex.B-2 is the another letter dated 09-02-06 shows that the list of articles noted therein from different fields would be handed over back within a period of 10 days and thereby they would be completing handover procedure. In this letter in total 13 items are mentioned with the remarks on each item. Ex.B-3 is the letter dated 25-08-06 under which they have up dated the information.

(I) That they inspected 80% of the all the locations listed as faulty in the correspondence made by the BSNL

(II) 50% of the items are not available in the respective locations and the concerned officials state that it has been sent to the stores or to the SDE (computers).

(III) The available materials in respect of locations have been rectified.

(IV) Some locations like Chilakaluripet and Narasaraopet does not have any status about the availability of the materials.

It is requested to assist them in handover process and also to release all the due payments to them including security deposit since they had detailed discussion with SDE (computers) who had assured them for arranging defective materials. Ex.B-4, B-5 and B-6 is the similar correspondence on the subject. Ex.B-7 is the letter dated 04-04-06 wherein it is intimated about completion of pending materials. This letter also indicates that after exchange of correspondence in between the parties, the following conclusion has taken place on behalf of both parties.

1. SDE (Computers) will take responsibilities in inspecting all the units in the specified time limit and submit the reports to the DGM-URBAN and Helix for further rectification if any.

a. The above action has been completed on mutual grounds. The DE (Computers) and Helix has agreed for the rectification of the minimum listed problems.

2. After completing the above mentioned problems the DGM/URBAN and SDE (Computers) has assured that the pending payment related to the total contractual services will be released within 30 days maximum, from the date of completion of the above and subsequently the security deposit will also be released in the same period.

3. DGM-URBAN will clarify the queries of the AGM(OP) and further instruct the necessary steps for the clearance of the pending payment and security deposit.

4. Meeting will be organized between Helix and AGM (OP) to get the clarification of the current payment status.

5. After the above meeting Helix can proceed the rectification.



As a genuine AMC vendor we hereby conclude that we are ready to solve all the problems which might not be genuine towards us, but for the sake of better customer satisfaction and long term relationships, it has been hereby wanted for further instruction from your end after which we will be completing the pending list for which you will be releasing all the due payments in the committed time span along with the security deposit.

As seen from Ex.B-9, B-10 and B-11 further correspondence took place in between the parties on the above subject. Ex.B-12 is the another letter dated 29-06-07 addressed to the DGM/planning & Administration, M/s BSNL, Guntur, in which it is stated that they have completed their contractual services on 31-12-05 and also received due payment for more than 1½ year on their services on the certificate of SDE (computers) and other respective in charges personally. It is also informed that they handedover all the materials according to the instructions of SDE/computers/DE computers on more than 4 occasions. Thereafter, there was a request letter from AGM/OP Department with certain listed items for which they have once again completed all the formalities during the months of August and September, 2006 and submitted a detailed report. After completion of 1½ years, now the AGM/OP Department says that there is huge penalty value has been arrived. After continuous and repeated discussion AGM/OP Department has not considered the certificates issued by respective in charges /SDE/Computers/DE-Computers for release of payments. Further, it reads that finally they received letter dated 09-05-07 which informs that Helix has to pay Rs.46,761/-, in this connection they have already submitted relevant documents. This apart they are also ready and willing to discuss the matter and sort out the differences amicably in personal meeting if required. Ex.B-13 is the letter dated 04-03-08 addressed by the SDE, Computers to the AGM/OP o/o GM, Telecoms, Guntur wherein it was informed that certain items listed therein were returned by the service engineer of Helix Automation(P) Limited. This shows that out of 4 items 2 items were returned in working condition on 22-2-07 and other two items in faulty condition. It is also mentioned therein that Bed Scanner Adopter (item No.3) is not covered by AMC. There is no remark about Bar Code Scanner which was returned on 04-03-08 on faulty condition. It is not understood from this letter if three items were returned in the month of February, 2007 the clearance letter is written by SDE, computers on 04-03-08. Ex.B-14 is the another letter dated 14-03-08 addressed to AGM/OP, O/O G.M., Telecom, wherein it is informed that digital system at Sl.No.2(811001120) was returned by M/s Helix Systems (P) Limited, Chennai in working condition on 22-02-07.

This complaint was filed on 31-12-07. The remaining items pending with the opposite party were returned on 04-03-08 and 14-03-08 (vide Ex.B-13 and B-14). Prior to that the opposite party has returned printers, scanners and other equipment lifted from different places on 09-02-06 vide Ex.B-2. On 21-12-06 vide Ex.B-6 while returning the items after due rectification they also requested for processing pending bills and return of security deposit. The present complaint simply speaks that the opposite party has received some systems/printers/scanners from different field units to take up the fault rectification but not returned the same. The cost of such items is shown to a tune of Rs.1,24,800/-. The complainant requested for return of equipment vide letter dated 21-08-06 failing which the cost of items would be recovered from the pending bills and as well as security deposit. Lastly, it sent a registered letter on 09-05-07 claiming in all a sum of Rs.46,761/- after adjustment of cost of equipment out of pending bills and security deposit. This apart it also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony aggregating in all Rs.96,761/-.

The aforesaid correspondence made by the opposite party reveals return of equipment which were lifted from different field units of complainant. It is also a fact that on satisfaction of their job the period of contract was extended for further 6 months. The complaint is silent as to description of equipment which is not returned. They did not specify the name of equipment and its cost, the total cost claimed at Rs.1,24,800/-. It is not made clear that how long they used the equipment and whether they deducted any depreciation in the cost. The complainant also failed to file rejoinder denying return of equipment with its specific description.

In its written argument, it is mentioned that the opposite party has lifted the items without arranging the substitute arrangements. With regard to applicability and non applicability of AMC it is mentioned that if AMC is not applicable for 29 items, they should not have lifted and kept with them for such a long period. Further, it is mentioned that as per their own version/statement they returned faulty equipment only after expiry of the AMC. This itself shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in attending the faults and returning the items. Lastly it is stated that there is huge delay in returning those items after expiry of AMC period.

Whereas, in the written arguments filed by opposite party it is alleged that at no time either during the contract period of AMC or its extended period the penalty clause is invoked which goes to show that they have extended satisfactory service and now the complainant have raised the penalty to a tune of Rs.1,29,417/- which is not sustainable at all. It is also made clear that all the materials were returned to the complainant as per letter dated 04-03-08 and 14-03-08 and there is no such returnable material pending with them. It is also stated that the materials as claimed by the complainant against which the penalty is levieble, were lifted after expiry of contract period out of mutual consent between the parties. In view of prudence of service and more so, the said materials are not covered by AMC contract as they were lifted after expiry of contractual period. Lastly it is stated that there are pending bills to a tune of Rs.1,17,521/- and security deposit of Rs.40,000/- aggregating in all Rs.1,57,721/- which was at the cheque written stage but they were held up deliberately. They also deny that there is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on their part.

Having considered the material on record including the written arguments filed by both sides, we are of the view that no returnable items were pending with the opposite party out of contractual obligations and as such no cost of equipment is recoverable from the opposite party. The complainant has failed to establish its case in the manner pleaded by it and that it is entitled for a sum of Rs.96,761/- after adjustment of Rs.157,521/- payable to opposite party. However, we find some lapses on the part of opposite party either in attending to the faulty items at various locations in rendering prompt and quick services and also delay in delivering the lifted items. To this extent, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party which can be suitably compensated in terms of money to the complainant.

Thus, we feel it appropriate to fix sum of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering. In all the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.30,000/-. The rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed. We also make it clear that the opposite party is eligible for refund of its amount viz., Rs.1,17,521/- towards pending bills and Rs.40,000/- towards security deposit in all Rs.1,57,521/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering to the complainant.

2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation.

3. The opposite party is also eligible for refund of its amount as stated in concluding para of this order.

4. The aforesaid amount payable by the opposite party either shall be paid directly within a period of one month or in the alternative it shall be adjusted out of the amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party. Order accordingly

C.C.No.74/2009

Between

Nayanaru Jagadeesh Kumar,

S/o. N. Srinivasulu Chetty,

Hindu, aged about 45 years,

Business at Shop No.40, Shopping Complex,

D.M.B. Road, Tirumala,

Chittoor District. …. Complainant



And



1. The General Manager,

Telecom District,

Bharatiya Sanchar Nigam Limited, (BSNL)

Having his office near Head Post Office,

Tirupati Town.



2. The Divisional Engineer,

O/o. GMTD.,

Bharatiya Sanchar Nigam Limited, (BSNL)

Having his office near Head Post Office,

Tirupati Town.



3. The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Having his office at Tirumala Post & Town,

Chittoor District.



4. The Postal Superintendent,

Head Post Office,

Tirupati Town, Chittoor District.



5. P. Siddaiah, Speed Postman,

C/o. Post Office,

Tirumala Town, Chittoor District. …. Opposite parties



This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.01.2010 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri Y.B.S. Bapujee, counsel for the complainant, Sri. V. Dhananjaya Varma, counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and Sri K. Ajey Kumar, counsel for the opposite parties No.3, 4 and 5 and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-



ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI M. SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH



This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay Rs.85,428/- together with future interest including damages, to pay costs of the complaint to the complainant and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.



2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is set out as here under:

(a) It is the case of the complainant that he made an application to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to get STD connection at shop No.40, Shopping complex, DMB Road, Tirumala. According to the instructions of the opposite parties 1 and 2, on 09.03.2001, the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to avail the above said STD connection and he also paid guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,000/- on 13.12.2004 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and to that effect, they gave receipts in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 and 2 allotted STD booth to the complainant bearing telephone connection No.0877-2270311 and since then he had been running the said STD booth by paying the monthly bills regularly. The complainant further narrated in para 4 of his complaint that in the month of November, 2008, with an intention to close the STD booth, as the said business was not deriving any income to eke out his livelihood and so he addressed a letter to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the same was considered and thereby the opposite parties 1 and 2 sent the guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,000/- together with interest of Rs.920/- totaling to Rs.27,920/- by way of cheque through the opposite parties 3 to 5, vide speed post No. EN672323506 dated 24.02.2009. But the opposite parties 3 to 5 have not served the said cover to the complainant. He also narrated in para 5 of his complaint, further that on enquiry with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and having come to know the fact of despatch of the above said amount by way of cheque, the complainant approached the third opposite party and made a representation about not serving of postal cover sent by the opposite parties 1 and 2 to the complainant and sent a copy of the same to the fourth opposite party to take action in the matter. There is no intimation / answer received by the complainant and so he made a representation on 14.05.2009 to the third opposite party, but there was no action taken in the matter and again on 15.05.2009, the complainant received an intimation from the fourth opposite party stating that the matter is on enquiry. The complainant further submitted in para 6 of his complaint that on 04.06.2009, the second opposite party recorded his statement and shown some of the documents concerned issued by the third and fourth opposite party and further it came to light that some of the employees of the opposite parties 3 and 4 in collusion with each other and by way of impersonation, by playing fraud, withdrawn the said amount mentioned above without any consent and knowledge of the complainant. On 11.05.2009, the first opposite party refunded Rs.5,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.886850 dated 22.05.2009 to the complainant which was paid at the time of availing the STD connection and he encashed the same.

(b) The complainant in para 7 of his complaint stated that inspite of his repeated approaches, requests and demands, the opposite parties 1 to 5 gave evasive replies instead of paying the guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,920/-, which the complainant is entitled to receive the same. The opposite parties 1 to 5 made the complainant to run pillar to post and post to pillar and made him to suffer with severe mental agony. There is gross negligence and evasiveness on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5 and it is nothing but deficiency in service on their part in not complying the demand of the complainant. So, the opposite parties are liable to pay the said guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,920/- together with interest at 24% per annum apart from damages of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for their deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for the mental agony suffered by him. Further, the complainant submitted in para 8 of his complaint that the opposite parties 1 to 5 have not taken any steps to disburse the amount of Rs.27,920/- to him. The fifth opposite party supported the culprits in withdrawing the said amount and the fifth opposite party is only the root cause for the present fraud played by them and for the present litigation. In the said circumstances, the complainant was forced to issue legal notice dated 22.07.2009 calling upon the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.27,920/- together with interest at 24% per annum apart from the damages of Rs.50,000/-, for their deficiency in service. The opposite party No.4 addressed a letter dated 06.07.2009 that they will look after the matter and remaining opposite parties, neither complied nor replied. The office copy of the legal notice dated 02.07.2009 along with served acknowledgements are filed along with the complaint and it may be read as part and parcel of it. In the said circumstances, the complainant is obliged to file this complaint against the opposite parties claiming the guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,920/- together with interest and damages as detailed in para 12 of his complaint. There are causes of action to file this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. Hence, the complaint.

3. In response, Sri V. Dhananjaya Varma, advocate filed vakalat on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 on 07.10.2009. Sri K. Ajey Kumar, advocate filed vakalat for opposite parties 3 to 5. Written version of opposite parties filed by their respective counsels on behalf of them with their affidavits.

(a) First of all, the written version filed on behalf of the second opposite party and the same was adopted by opposite party No.1, denying the allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. According to para 4 of written version filed by second opposite party is that issuing of the said cheque of Rs.27,920/- through the opposite parties 3 to 5 is true and remaining allegations that opposite parties 3 to 5 have not served the said cover vide speed post No. EN672323506 to the complainant is false. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same and in the same manner denial of allegations are made in paras 5 to 9 of the complaint. The written version of the second opposite party discloses that as per para 11 of it is that the complainant gave a letter to close the telephone connection to the opposite parties 1 & 2 and thereby the BSNL department closed the telephone connection NO.TUL-2270311 and it was finalized on 30.08.2009 vide refund order NO.97680 for an amount of Rs.27,920/- was refunded through cheque bearing No.889334 dated 27.12.2008 to STD PT agent. The cheque was despatched from General section on 29.02.2009 and further the cheque was not returned to the finalization section / AO cash section. In para 12 of written version of opposite parties 1&2 discloses that opposite parties 1 and 2 bank account No.10628553547 is verified and found that the said cheque for Rs.27,920/- was cleared on 24.03.2009, after finalization of the amount refunded the security deposit and also the STD connection charges of Rs.5,000/- was returned to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 suspects that the complainant and the opposite parties 3 to 5 might have colluded with each other and encashed the above said cheques and filed false complaint only to harass the opposite parties 1 and 2. After finalisation of the account of the complainant, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have refunded the deposit as well as the security deposit. Both the cheques were encashed as per the bank account statement. The opposite parties 1 and 2 promptly discharged their duties and returned the amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they are not liable to pay any compensation amount as claimed by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and if there is any amount due to the complainant, he has to approach the civil court and recover the amount. It is therefore, prayed the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss this complaint with exemplary costs.

(b) The opposite parties 3 to 5 have also filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint against them except those that are specifically admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the rest of the allegations made in the complaint. It is specifically mentioned in para 4 of written version that except the booking of a speed post article, the other allegations in para 4 of complaint is denied. According to them, the contents of the article was not known to the opposite parties 3 to 5 and at the time of booking of the article, the person who booked the article did not disclose the value of article or insure the same with these opposite parties (3 to 5). As per the opposite parties 3 to 5 as it is mentioned in para 8 of it that department of posts is only responsible for the delivery of the said speed post article either to the addressee or to the sender. The said article addressed to the complainant residing at Tirumala and it was booked at Tirupati Head post office by BSNL authorities under speed post service and sent to Tirumala for effecting delivery and the same was issued to postman on the day of its receipt for delivery. The said article was returned to the sender on 11.03.2009 with remarks “Absent” made by the delivery staff. On receipt at Tirupati Head post office the said speed post article was returned to the sender on 12.03.2009 duly obtained a quittance in delivery challan of the said article to BSNL. Since the speed post article no. EN67232506 was returned to the sender under clear receipt and the department is no way connected with disposal of the contents of the said speed post article. It is on receipt of the said article at Tirupati Head post office, the same was correctly delivered to the sender under clear receipt. There is no dispute in delivery of the said article between the sender and department. Hence, there is no question of deficiency in service as far in disposal of the said article by department. There is no refusal or complaint that the article was returned by tampering etc. Hence, the department is not responsible for the contents of the said article after its delivery (i.e., return) to the sender. After the delivery of the said article sent to the sender, the responsibility / safe custody of the contents of the speed post article rests on the sender i.e. BSNL authorities and its further disposal is known to the sender only and department of post is no way connected with its further disposal or safe custody of the contents of the speed post article. As such, the complainant is fully aware of the disposal of the contents of the speed post article. Enquiry made by the department in connection with disposal of the speed post article ended with result of delivery (redirected) of the said speed post article securely to the sender and there is no complaint from the sender in this connection. In fact 3 to 5 opposite parties are not aware of contents of speed post and the encashment of the cheque which alleged to have been sent through the said speed post article. The same is not connected with the delivery of the speed post article to the sender and it requires complete enquiry by the BSNL authorities in whose possession the returned cover is available. The Post office is supposed to open the SB account whenever a customer approaches the Post office for the same, after observing usual formalities and transact the business. In this way the SB account No.2655433 was opened at Tirupati H.O. and the business transacted. If any disposal of the cheque, it is for the BSNL to take action in this regard. Further the department is also investigating with regard to the disposal of the cheque. But there is no deficiency with regard to disposal of the speed post article. Further the court has no jurisdiction and the complainant has no right to approach this Forum. Under such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. The matter seems to have been involved criminal investigation. Hence, the complaint deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his chief affidavit. The complainant has also filed 9 documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the original Tirupati Telecom receipt bearing No.10257369 dated 09.03.2001 for Rs.5,000/- issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A2 is also original Tirupati Telecom receipt bearing No.300310724 dated 13.12.2004 for Rs.27,000/- issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 is the original proceedings No. CCC/MISC/DLGS dt.15.05.09 at Tirupati, Department of Posts (OPNo.4) issued to the complainant. Ex.A4 is the letter dated 14.05.2009 of the complainant issued to the opposite party No.3 about the non-delivery of speed post NO. EN No.672323506 dated 24.02.2009. Ex.A5 is the xerox copy of statement of complainant dated 04.06.2009 and it discloses it in enquiry in nature with questions and answers about savings account particulars. Ex.A6 is the letter of refund order No.107724 dated 11.05.2009 for Rs.5,000/- conveyed to the complainant through speed post EN 861723256 IN dated 08.06.2009 and it received on 09.06.2009. Ex.A7 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 02.07.2009 issued by the learned counsel for the complainant on behalf of the complainant to all the opposite parties herein. Ex.A8 is the original letter dated 06.07.2009 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati (OPNo.4) to the complainant’s advocate. Ex.A9 is the Xerox copy of complainant’s Oriental Bank of Commerce, S.B. A/c. No.52052010001000 particulars of entries made during the period of 26.12.2006 to 12.03.2009.

5. In support of the averments made in the written version of the opposite parties 1 to 5, the respective opposite parties 1to 2 and 3 to 5 filed 15 documents, which are marked as Ex.B1 to B15. Ex.B1 is the Xerox copy of the office of opposite party No.1 proceedings dated 12.09.2008 about sanction of the final bills for refund order numbers from 97651 to 87700 and concerned bill for refund order of the complainant NO. 2270311, Ro No.97680 for Rs.27,920/- of Head A/c. No.927 dated 30.08.2008. Ex.B2 is the account statement and balance as on 24.03.2009 issued by the SBI and certified by opposite party No.2. Ex.B3 is the speed post booking particulars customer code No.35 relating to the complainant issued by the opposite party No.2. Ex.B4 is the attested Xerox copy of certificate of delivery of speed post article bearing NO. EN 672 323506 dated 24.02.2009 sent by opposite party No.1, was delivered again to the sender on 12.03.2009 and the same was attested by opposite party No.4. Ex.B5 is the Xerox copy of delivery slip dated 12.03.2009 issued by despatcher and the same was certified by opposite party NO.2. Ex.B6 is the Xerox copy of savings bank no. 2655433 issued by opposite party NO.4 in favour of complainant and introduced by one Mr. P. Seshadri of Tirupati dated 20.03.2009. Ex.B7 is the Xerox copy of ledger (SB A/c.) of alleged complainant’s account NO.2655433 and attested by opposite party No.4. Ex.B8 is the delivery report and attested by opposite party NO.4. Ex.B9 is another Xerox copy of attested delivery report filed by opposite party NO.4. Ex.B10 is the xerox copy of attested delivery report filed by opposite party NO.4. Ex.B11 is the Xerox copy of attested delivery report filed by opposite party NO.4. Ex.B12 is the Xerox copy of attested delivery report filed by opposite party No.4. Ex.B13 to Ex.B15 are also attested copies of delivery report filed by opposite party No.4.

6. On behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel for complainant filed written arguments including additional written arguments and the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written arguments but opposite parties 3 to 5 have not filed their written arguments except written version. Both the parties to this consumer case have filed affidavits in support of their case and also produced the documents, which are marked as exhibits.

7. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the points that arise for our determination are:

1 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties

towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed, if so to what

extent?

3. To what relief?

8. Point No.1:- (a) The basic facts of this consumer case are not disputed and so they are not reproduced once again here to avoid the repetition of the same. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the complaint as well as written version. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri Y.B.S. Bapujee has vehemently argued that there is clear impersonation in the name of the complainant, surname and address and photo affixed on the account opening form and the signatures thereon as per Ex.B6, are not tallied with the complainant, to prove the said fact, complainant has filed his bank pass book (Ex.A9). He further argued that the documentary evidence filed by the opposite parties 3 to 5 has clearly established the fact that there is a collusion between the employees of opposite parties 1 and 2 and the employees of opposite parties 3 to 5. He also further argued that the opposite parties 1 to 5 are throwing blame on each other, without rendering proper service to the complainant. He also further argued that there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and the complainant is put to much hardship, mental agony and irreparable loss and also suffering since 24.02.2009. The employees of the opposite parties have played mischief and fraud and thereby swallowed the alleged cheque amount of Rs.27,920/- and it is clearly proved and established by their own documents. The complainant is legally entitled to get Rs.27,920/- with interest at the rate of 24% and also compensation and costs as prayed for in the complaint.

(b)(i) In response, Sri. V. Dhananjaya Varma, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, has also vehemently argued that the opposite parties 1 and 2 finalised the account of the complainant and refunded both the deposit as well as security deposit to the complainant and alleged cheque amount of Rs.27,920/- which is in dispute, was already cleared on 24.03.2009. He also further argued that the complainant and opposite parties 3 to 5 might have colluded with each other and encashed the said cheque and filed a false complaint to harass the opposite parties 1 and 2. They have discharged their duties and returned the amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. The complainant ought to have proceed against the opposite parties 3 to 5, to recover the amount and unnecessarily dragged the opposite parties 1 and 2, with an aim to get wrongful gain. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any damages or costs of the complaint to the complainant and hence the complaint has to be dismissed against the opposite parties 1 and 2 with costs.

(ii) On the other hand, Sri K. Ajey Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 to 5 has also vehemently argued that department of post is only responsible for the delivery of the said alleged speed post article either to the addressee or to the sender. He also further argued that the above said article addressed to the complainant residing at Tirumala and it was booked at Tirupati Head post office by BSNL authorities under “speed post” service and sent to Tirumala for effecting delivery. The same was issued to the postman on the day of its receipt for delivery. The said article was returned to sender on 11.03.2009 with remarks “absent” made by the delivery staff and on receipt at Tirupati Head post office, the said speed post article was returned to the sender on 12.03.2009 duly obtained acquittance in delivery challan of the said article to BSNL authorities and it is clearly proved by the documents Ex.B3 to B5 and Exs. B7 to B15. The said learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 to 5 further argued that the above said missed article was correctly delivered to the sender under clear receipts. There is no dispute in delivery of the said article between the sender and postal department. He also further argued that the department is not responsible for the contents of the said article after its delivery (i.e return) to the sender. After the delivery of the said article sent to the sender, the responsibility / safe custody of the contents of the speed post article rests on the sender i.e, BSNL authorities and its further disposal is connected with its further disposal or safe custody of the contents of the speed post article. As such, the complainant is fully aware of the disposal of the contents of the speed post article. Enquiry made by the department in connection with the disposal of the speed post article ended with result of delivery of the said speed post article securely to the sender and there is no complaint from the sender in this connection. The opposite parties 3 to 5 are not aware of contents of speed post article and encashment of the cheque which alleged to have been send through the said speed post article. The same is not connected with the delivery of the speed post article to the sender and it requires complete enquiry by the BSNL authorities in whose possession the returned cover is available. The post office is supposed to open the SB account whenever a customer approaches the post office for the same, after observing usual formalities and transact the business. In this way, the SB account No.2655433 was opened at Tirupati H.O. and the business transacted. If any disposal of the cheque, it is for the BSNL to take action in this regard. Further the department is also investigating with regard to the disposal of the cheque. But there is no deficiency with regard to disposal of the speed post article. He also further argued that the Forum has no jurisdiction and the complainant has no right to approach this Forum. Under such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. The matter seems to have been involved criminal investigation. Hence, the complaint deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs against the opposite parties 3 to 5.

Forum Findings and Observations

(c ) We have gone through the record carefully and heard both parties. On perusal of the record and hearing of the learned counsel for both parties at length, it is crystal clear that this consumer case describes the pathetic condition of the complainant according to the facts and circumstances. Where the fault lies and who are responsible for it and ultimately who has to compensate the victim / complainant under the said circumstances of the case, is the point to be decided with available material on hand.

Admittedly, the complainant paid guarantee deposit amount of Rs.27,000/- dated 13.12.2004 to the first opposite party and it is proved through Ex.A2 and the same is established through Ex.B2, according to the account statement of SBI furnished by opposite party No.1 dated 24.03.2009 for refund of security deposit to the complainant. Ex.B3, i.e, speed post booking journal is clearly goes to show that the alleged cover sent by opposite party No.1 through postal authorities to the complainant. Subsequently, the documents filed by opposite parties 3 to 5 reveal that the letters and its non-delivery and proceedings maintained further are also crystal clear as per opposite parties 3 to 5. It is also to be remembered the fact that everything is done through human agency and it is very easy to find out truth provided, a proper enquiry is made at appropriate time by the concerned officials of the opposite parties 1 to 5 together. According to Ex.B6, i.e., opening account form is clearly demonstrates and appears that there is a fraud played by sub-staff of the Head post office and name of introducer of account is mentioned in it. For that, what action has been taken against that postman by the postal department (OPNo.4) so far, has not been explained to us. He is set free without any suspension whatsoever inspite of mischief, fraud committed by him, by the postal authorities at Tirupati till now. He ought to have suspended immediately by the postal department, pending enquiry, collecting the amount from him, when it is clearly fraud surfaces with documentary evidence against the culprit but that has not been done by the postal authorities for the reasons best known to them. As far as the opposite parties 1 to 2 are concerned, Ex.B4 i.e. certificate of delivery is clearly discloses that speed post article dated 24.02.2009 sent by opposite party No.1 is again re-delivered to sender after 15 days leisurely by the postal authorities (OP No.4) on 12.03.2009. Later on, what had happened to that said article and whether contents of it are intact or not, is it not the duty of opposite party NO.1 to verify and question opposite party No.4 for delay more than 15 days. The officials of opposite parties do not know the meaning of ‘speed post’ and when the said speed post article was returned to them and further which action has been taken by them and for that there is no explanation for it and simply writing letters to the complainant by saying in Ex.A3 “the inconvenience caused to you is regretted by opposite party No.4, will not console or serve the purpose of complainant. These are all delaying tactics adopted by the opposite parties. Till, the amount payable to the complainant by opposite party No.1 is not materalised properly, BSNL authorities cannot escape liability. What type of action has been taken by the BSNL authorities against postal authorities so far for missing the article and ultimately found real culprit not at all explained to us. In view of the circumstances and facts of the case are in existence, it can inferred according to law, the opposite parties are fully in gross negligence and rendered deficiency in service towards the complainant. This point is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- As it appears under the head “particulars of valuation” in para 12 of complaint, the complainant prayed for the alleged cheque amount of Rs.27,920/- with interest at 24% from 12.11.2008 to 08.09.2009 (i.e. 9 months and 26 days) claimed for Rs.5,508/- and also damages for Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, the alleged cheque amount of Rs.27,920/- sent through speed post on 24.02.2009 by opposite party NO.1, but for reasons stated supra, the said article contained in the cover does not reach the addressee for several reasons as per the opposite parties contention. It is all in the record. The point for consideration is now that, the complainant is legally entitled to get the alleged cheque amount and compensation for delay and for mental agony suffered by him because of the inadvertence and carelessness of the opposite parties. No doubt, it is purely deficiency in service of the opposite parties towards the complainant.

In these circumstances, in a case of this nature, it is apt to mention that wherein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta III 1993 CPJ 7 (SC) and observed in the following words: “Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially adhering and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure it undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook”.

The Apex court has also further observed that in appropriate cases, the National Commission should direct the concerned authority to recover some amount of compensation from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We find considerable substance in the submissions made on behalf of the complainant by his said learned counsel. We are satisfied that it is a fit case wherein we have to provide the reliefs to the complainant. The case of the complainant is totally justified. In view of the discussion of facts and circumstances of the case in Point No.1, it can be said that on Principles of Natural Justice, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- apart from the alleged cheque amount of Rs.27,920/- and also costs of Rs.1,500/- for the complaint filed by him. The said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- is payable to the complainant from the public fund immediately, but to recover the same from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour as per the ruling of said Apex court’s decision in the above said case. A thorough enquiry should be made by the officials of opposite parties together to find out:

(a) Who was opened the said speed post cover and stolen the said cheque of Rs.27,920/- from it?

(b) who was deposited the said cheque for collection and opened account in the name of the complainant?

(c) why there is inordinate delay and who are responsible for total episode happened. These aspects should be bear in mind while investigation into the matter and it should be done without any further delay. The persons are liable for it according to criminal law and its procedure. If the guilt of accused is proved, it amounts to the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 415 I.P.C. This point is answered accordingly.

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.27,920/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand nine hundred and twenty only), to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and suffering and also to pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

i have paid my bsnl landline (06344-255544) bill thru online which details are as follows
Circle- BHR
SSA- MGR
Portal Transaction ID- TX0802201001009
bill no- T0702201013912195
Unique ID- 0414329143
bank tranction ID- 6592767
amount- 99.00
Receipt no- 888880489686
Transaction Status- Successful
Tranction Date- 08 Feb 10
but it has not been updated. Again i paid the same bill on bsnl, munger cash counter, but no responce. and my services has also been stopped. what to do ? bsnl is also taking billpayments thru post offices. earlier i paid my all billls thru postoffice. not a single penny is due to BSNL. altough my services has been stopped.

somesh chandra
e mail- somesh82in@yahoo.co.in
mb no - 9249507289

I paid rs 5515 for plan 500c on une 2009under which i had limited access to broadband as well as landline. For last two months i am receiving extrra charges though my usage has been same .Chrges are for broad band. while i have maintained minimum use . last time also i complaned on 1500 and this time also they are not responding to my querry. Please take some action or advise me whom to appeoach as land line services and broadband seems to be devided.I want to inform u that i am senior citizen and this is causing great inconvenience to me.

Dear sir,
My name is N.K.Joy.I am a resident of Guruvayoour muncipality(Ward number:7-Building number:32 A).For last 8 month's I am enquiring about BSNL land line connection and about BSNL Internet connection.But,there the staff's said me that there are no cable pair remaining for my house.Here,house's next to me have BSNL land connection..(their number is 2551036) .Land line and internet connection is an importent one for my personal need's,busines purpose's and also for my children studie's.When i enquired about E-stick,Mobile net's and about other connection's,I come to know that BSNL net connection is better than all that.I think you can find a good solution for this problem....Kindly requesting you'r help.
Kindly N.K.Joy
My Adress:
N.K.Joy Neyyen(H)
Puthampalli(p.o)
680103(PIN)
Guruvayoour
Thrissur(district)
Kerala
My mobile no:9496166813

Thats's bad..

To
The Sub Divisional Engineer ( Marketing) / Technical……………………………………………..
B S N L, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES
JADAVPUR, K olkata. Dt: 09-03-2011
C O M P L A I N T
BSNL CDMA SERVICES ACCOUNT NO: 361470820
Dear Sir,
Fully knowing the limited mobility & functional limitations of the EV-DO Data card services , a section of your staff/officer, now posted at JADAVPUR, KOLKATA, BSNL OFFICE, resorted to a false presentation to me, in support of that Chinese-made inferior-quality data-card, which is non-functional in many places of India, outside the State of West Bengal.
Accordingly, I could not make any meaningful use of the said CARD and get in touch with the INTERNETS from Sarjapur Main Road Areas, Bangalore , from 21-02-2011 to 06-03-2011.
Please, therefore, arrange for(i) an I M M E D I A T E replacement of the said card by a suitable one, at no extra-cost, with guaranteed ALL-INDIA mobility, if at all available with your organization right now, and (ii) only raise the BILL with proportionate concessions for the periods for which your services were not made available to me.
In case your good office opt for the neither(i) or (ii) , please treat this C O M P L A I N T as a final notice for the WITHDRAWAL / SURRENDER /DISCONNECTION of the CDMA services to me ,and stop raising any BILL with effect from 01-05-2011.
Yours etc.

(KANAI CHAKRABORTY)
164/78, Lake Gardens, B-13, Kolkata- 700045
CC to (i) CGM, Telephone Bhawan, Kol-700001 (ii) T R A I
To
The Divisional Engineer (Technical) /……………………………………………..
B S N L, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES
JADAVPUR, K olkata. Dt: 09-03-2011
C O M P L A I N T
BSNL CDMA SERVICES ACCOUNT NO: 361470820
Dear Sir,
Fully knowing the limited mobility & functional limitations of the EV-DO Data card services , a section of your staff/officer, now posted at JADAVPUR, KOLKATA, BSNL OFFICE, resorted to a false presentation to me, in support of that Chinese-made inferior-quality data-card, which is non-functional in many places of India, outside the State of West Bengal.
Accordingly, I could not make any meaningful use of the said CARD and get in touch with the INTERNETS from Sarjapur Main Road Areas, Bangalore , from 21-02-2011 to 06-03-2011.
Please, therefore, arrange for(i) an I M M E D I A T E replacement of the said card by a suitable one, at no extra-cost, with guaranteed ALL-INDIA mobility, if at all available with your organization right now, and (ii) only raise the BILL with proportionate concessions for the periods for which your services were not made available to me.
In case your good office opt for the neither(i) or (ii) , please treat this C O M P L A I N T as a final notice for the WITHDRAWAL / SURRENDER /DISCONNECTION of the CDMA services to me ,and stop raising any BILL with effect from 01-05-2011.
Yours etc.

(KANAI CHAKRABORTY)
164/78, Lake Gardens, B-13, Kolkata- 700045
CC to (i) CGM, Telephone Bhawan, Kol-700001 (ii) T R A I

After sending several messages or call I could no start DND on my BSNL numbers 9431161294 and 9470839132, it seems that BSNL has stopped his help line numbers ( customer care number since long) after several attempts since last six months I could not contact any of the service executives.

I regret to state that my landline bearing no 23976405, has been lying unrepaired, since 09/03/2011, even after repeated reminders. I am happy for those people who have surrendered their landline and have opted for a private company who are giving a great service. It's a tragady that the govt agency does not even bother to satisfy its landline users, by attending to the faults within a period of 24hours, as claimed by the bsnl. ,.No wonder the govt has to suffer in the hands of such persons who are sitting at the top posts, not doing thier jobs to perfection as they claim . It's time the govt did take a stand on such people.