West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/95/2015

Susmita Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

. General Mananger, BSNL, Suri Telecom District - Opp.Party(s)

Samarpita Mukherjee

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

The case of the complainant Susmita Mukherjee, in brief, is that she is / was customer under the O.P Company having its telephone connection being No. 03462 256485 and she used to pay bills and other charges to the O.P office regularly within due date prescribed by the O.P Co.

            It is the further case of the complainant that at the time of installation of the telephone in question the complainant deposited Rs. 2000 to the O.P Co. as security money with condition to return back the same when connection of the said connection will be surrendered.

            But the O.P Co. had been providing very poor service and after repeated complaints made by the complainant the O.P did not resolve those issues. Lastly she surrender her telephone connection with an application for closer of the telephone connection which was received by the O.P Co. on 08.05.2014 and she was assured that deposit amount will be sent to her address by cheque very soon.

            It is the next question of the complainant that inspite of several reminder the O.P Co. has not return back her claim amount which is illegal highhanded and without jurisdiction and it is also negligence of service on the part of the O.P Co.

            The complainant also sent an Advocate’s letter through Smt. Samarpita Mukherjee Ld. Advocate in this regard which was received by the O.P on 08.06.15 but they did not pay any heed. Hence, this case for directing the O.P to return back security money amount to Rs. 2000 to the complainant with interest, compensation of Rs. 20000 for their negligence service and Rs. another 20000 for harassment and mental agony.

            The O.P BSNL has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the case contending inter alia the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action. It is the specific case of the O.P BSNL practically the complainant has not deposited Rs. 2000 as security money. But a sum of Rs. 893/- has been refunded to the complainant after adjustment of the necessary bill as per provision of the BSNL against her security deposit vide cheque No. 014651 dated 31.07.15 by speed post.

            It is the further case of the O.Ps BSNL that the complainant is bound to submit receipt of Rs. 2000 to show that actually she has deposited the same.

            It is the further case of the BSNL that they have already refunded the admissible security amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            Considering the complaint and other materials on record with think following points are to be decided in this case.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant has been examined her as P.W.1 and submitted some documents. O.P did not adduce any evidence but filed some document. Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of both parties has been heard.

Point No.1: It is the case of the O.P BSNL that the complainant is not consumer under O.P BSNL as she has already surrender her telephone.

            But evidently till before filing of the present case the O.P has not paid entire dues to the complainant regarding her security deposit.

So, till such payment she was consumer under the O.P BSNL.

Point No.2: Total valuation of the case is Rs. 42000 which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000.

            Office of the both O.Ps are situated within Suri Town within jurisdiction of the Forum.

            So, this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            Admittedly the complainant Susmita Mukherjee had telephone landline connection under the O.P BSNL.

            It is also admitted fact that she has already surrender said landline telephone connection.

            It is also admitted fact that during pendency of the case on 31.07.2015 the O.P BSNL has been refunded Rs. 893 to the complainant after adjustment of necessary bill against her security deposit.

 

 

            It is the specific case of the complainant that she has deposited Rs. 2000 as security and has been claiming said amount.

            But the O.P BSNL has denied the said fact and submitted that she has not deposited Rs. 2000 as security.

            Like any other civil cases, in this case also onus is upon the complainant to prove that she has deposited Rs. 2000 as she has been claiming that she deposited said amount.

            But the complainant failed to produce any paper to show that she deposited Rs. 2000 as security amount.

However, the O.P BSNL has already paid Rs. 893/- to the complainant against security deposit after adjustment.

But we find that the present case was filed on 13.07.2015 and said amount was paid to the complainant on 31.07.2015 i.e. after filing of the case.

So, the allegation of the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P BSNL has been proved from the conduct of the O.P BSNL.

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the complainant and O.P BSNL is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation as deficiency in service.  

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 95/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost  of Rs. 2000.

The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation as deficiency in service.

The aforesaid order will be complied with by the O.Ps within one month from this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to resort to due process of law and procedure. 

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.