Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/91/2017

D.P.Sharma s/o Sohan Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bharat Sanchar Migam Ltd.through Principal General Manager District Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Prakash Sharma

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 91 /2017

 

D.P.Sharma s/o Sohanlal Sharma r/o 130 Shakti Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

Vs.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. District Office, M.I.Road, Jaipur through Principal General Manager District Telecom

FIRST APPEAL NO: 99 /2017

 

D.P.Sharma s/o Sohanlal Sharma r/o 130 Shakti Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

Vs.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. District Office, M.I.Road, Jaipur through Principal General Manager District Telecom

 

Date of Order 22.3.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

2

 

Mr. Prakash Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.Anand Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are filed against similar order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it was the duty of the respondent to have the payment of the bills through ECS and payment was made on time but due to technical error of the computer system payment was not recorded and penalty was recovered and inspite of the deficiency on the part of the respondent the complaint has wrongly been dismissed. Hence, claim be allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that after the disclosure of the error penalty was adjusted in next month and claim has rightly been rejected.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

3

 

impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. Facts are taken from Appeal No. 99/2017.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that bill of August 2015 was paid on time but due to failure of computer system ECS could not be recorded and penalty was charged.

 

The contention of the respondent is that it was adjusted in the month of November whereas the original bill Ex. P2 reveals that due date of the bill was 28.12.2015. Hence, the contention of the respondent is contrary to the record and it was deficiency on the part of the respondent to charge penalty inspite of the fact that the payment was made on time.

 

It is true that the amount is meager but the object and aim of the Consumer Protection Act is not to allow compensation for loss to the consumer but to provide him flawless services and value of amount how meager it may be irrelevant in the light of above preposition and it is more than clear that without any fault of the complainant penalty was charged and inspite of the fact that it was in the knowledge of the respondent that penalty is charged wrongly it has not been

4

 

reversed till the present complaints have filed.

 

Hence, both appeals are allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 20.12.2016 is set aside. The complainants appellants are entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as cost of proceedings in each appeal. Order be complied within one month from today otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.

 

(Nisha Gupta)

President

nm