BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.292 of 2017
Date of Instt. 17.08.2017
Date of Decision: 08.04.2019
Baldev Singh aged about 52 years son of Sh. Rulda Ram resident of H. No.257/3, Sarup Nagar, Raowali Village, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Chief Accounts Officer, GPO Building, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. R. K. Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. P. S. Pathania, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is an ex-service man being retired from Indian Army and till the month of November, 2016 used the BSNL Wimax Connection, vide Account No.172700724 being regular consumer of the respondent/OP. Some latest and oldest receipts of payment of bills of such Wimax Connection are attached. Till November, 2016 OP provided the internet services to the complainant being service provider. The complainant was not satisfied with the service provided by the OP due to bad internet service provided by the OP. That complainant regularly complained about the bad internet services to the concerned officials of the OP by making online and offline complaints, but OP was always found negligent in resolving that matter.
2. That the complainant suffered a lot of financial and mental harassment due to bad internet speed and not resolving online complaints in time by the OP. Hence,in the month of November, 2016 decided to get the said connection terminated. Seeing no more other choice, the complainant in the month of November, 2016 had applied to disconnection of his connection and also made request for refunding back the security deposited by him at the time of installation of said connection. The OP assured the complainant that they would refund the same immediately when he clears all his dues, but even after clearing all the dues on 17th November, 2016 and filling the application form for refunding of the security deposited, but the officials of the OP did not perform their duty and did not refund the security deposited amount. The complainant had made regular requests before OP for refunding the security deposited by the complainant at the time of installing the said connection, but OP befooling the complainant on one pretext and other and did not refund the same even after 8 months of disconnection of said connection. Then a legal notice dated 09.07.2017 was sent to the concerned officer of the BSNL, but they did not bother and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay compensation on account of deficient services and negligent act and conduct of it's concerned officers and further OPs be directed to pay the amount of security deposited by the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation and damages of Rs.10,000/- on account of giving financial and mental harassment to the complainant and further, the OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service nor any negligence nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to drag the BSNL and its officials in unnecessary litigation. Hence, merits dismissed. It is further submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present consumer case as the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act debar of filing such complaints before the Forum. It is the dispute pertaining to services provided under the Indian Telegraph Act and as per the settled law, no such complaint before the Consumer Forum can lie, if there is a dispute pertaining to the services to be decided under the Indian Telegraph Act. The complainant would have filed an application for appointing an arbitrator under the Indian Telegraph Act. It is further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum. The real facts are that the refund list No.21 issued by AO, Mobile Billing was received by accounts office, Jalandhar on 13.03.2017 and the same was uploaded in the system of the BSNL for refund on 27.03.2017 for issuance of the cheque against Wimax Refund document No.1900174375 and the cheque No.226461 dated 14.08.2017 has been issued by the Chandigarh Circle Office to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1750/- and the same was received by the Jalandhar Office on 16.09.2017 and the same was immediately sent on the address of the complainant, vide registered post dated 04.10.2017, but the same has been returned as there is an endorsement of the postal authorities of insufficient address and the same has been returned to the answering OPs by the postal authorities and then the same has been sent on the address which has been given by Baldev Singh to the BSNL at the time of availing the facilities. Hence from the above, it is crystal clear that the BSNL has not been negligent in performing its duties with the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the above said true facts and the copy of the refund draft, envelope received undelivered along with the postal authorities endorsement are attached. On merits, the installation of the BSNL connection as well as for applying for disconnection of the same is not denied, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. First of all, we like to take legal question raised in this complaint that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint because as per 'Indian Telegraph Act', if any dispute arises between the parties, the same should be referred to the Arbitrator. We have considered this submission of the learned counsel for the OP and find that this version is not a true one because the matter has been already decided in so many cases that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction and further, we like to refer a pronouncement of UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 2010 (3) C. P. J. 265, titled as “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Abmika Singh”, wherein categorically held that “Jurisdiction of District Forum is not barred”. So, accordingly, the question in regard to jurisdiction is resolved and version of the OP is not established.
8. Further, coming to the main issue in dispute, admittedly, the OP has not denied that the complainant got disconnected the connection and applied for refund of the security amount of Rs.1750/- and alleged that even after elapsing of 8 or more months, the same has not been refunded to the complainant. The OP took a plea that after concluding all the formalities of the department, a cheque bearing No.226461 dated 14.08.2017 had been issued by the Chandigarh Circle Office to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1750/- and the said cheque was received in the Jalandhar Office on 16.09.2017 and immediately the same was sent to the complainant by registered post on 04.10.2017, but it was received back with the report that the address is not proper and in support of these versions, the OP has brought on the file photostat copy of the cheuqe Ex.OP-2 and Postal Receipt Ex.OP-3 and Endorsement made by the Postman on the Envelope is Ex.OP-4.
9. From the above documents, it is established that there is no negligence or unfair trade practice as well as deficiency on the part of the OP because the refund of the security amount is to be processed from different branches of the Post and Telegraph Department and accordingly, it was sent to the Chandigarh Office, where-from it was passed and cheque was prepared and sent to the office of Jalandhar and accordingly, the same was sent to the complainant, but due to incomplete address, the same was returned back in the month of October, 2017. The OP has made its best efforts to return the amount of the complainant as early as possible, but due to some official technical procedure and formalities, the same has been delayed for reasonable time and thereafter, the cheque was sent to the complainant. So, we do not find any deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses.
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the security amount of Rs.1750/- to the complainant immediately i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant will entitle to get interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 17.08.2017, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
08.04.2019 Member President
