Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/73/2021

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Lal Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

D.P. Sharma & Rishav Sharma Adv.

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	73 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	10.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	26.07.2022

 

 

 

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Assistant General Manager, Legal, Office of PGMTD, Sector-34, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Shiv Lal Yadav S/o Late Sh. Harchand Yadav, R/o Flat No.1424, Pushpak Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued  by:-     

Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. D. R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    This appeal has been filed by the opposite party, namely, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (appellant herein) against order dated 13.07.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.690 of 2019 filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav (respondent herein) has been partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“6.           In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

 

1. to refund the amount of Rs.403.79 to the complainant illegally deducted by the OP towards higher rental plan.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

7.      This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

2.      The brief facts as culled from the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the District Commission were as under:-

“1.      Averments are, in the year 2016 the complainant got landline connection number 0172-263124 from the OP and deposited ₹1,299/-.  The OP with a view to increase clientage launched “Experience –LL–49, Go-Green-Plan”. It was offered with deposit of ₹720/- which was to be adjusted in upcoming monthly rentals. On 17.9.2018, the complainant opted ₹49/- monthly plan and deposited ₹720/-.  Averred, in the month of January, 2019 the OP changed the plan of the complainant without his knowledge and consent. The complainant came to know of the same in February 2019 when he received the invoice dated 4.2.2019 in which the recurring charges were shown as ₹161.90. Further, in the month of March 2019 the plan of the complainant was again changed to monthly rental of ₹299/-. The complainant approached the OP and raised protest, but, to no avail. The complainant alleged that the action of the OP in changing the plan from ₹49/- monthly rental to ₹299/- without his knowledge and consent amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2.      OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. Stated that the landline number in question was again re-connected on 18.1.2018 to avail the already existing promotional landline plan. Subsequently the promotional plan in question was withdrawn by the BSNL Headquarter vide circular dated 2.7.2018 and it was automatically converted by the computer system into a general plan on 18.1.2019 i.e. after one year.  Maintained the OP had already refunded the security amount of ₹1,410/- to the complainant through cheque after deducting outstanding amount of ₹389/- from the security deposit of ₹1,799/-. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.”

3.                In its grounds of appeal, setting aside of the impugned order has been sought by the appellant on the similar grounds as were raised by the appellant in the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission. It has been stated that the complaint was not maintainable because of the reason that the promotional plan namely “Experience-LL49” was for a limited period only as it was clearly mentioned/written and complainant could not force the appellant to reinstate the said promotional plan, which is not in existence now. It has further been stated that the security amount of Rs.1,410/- had already been refunded to the respondent after deducting the outstanding amount of Rs.389/- from the deposited security of Rs.1,799/-.

4.                It may be stated here that Sh. Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent on 03.03.2022. Subsequently, on 25.04.2022, the next date of hearing, Sh. Suraj, Law Intern appeared on behalf of Sh. Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent and filed written arguments on behalf of the respondent. However, on the date of final arguments i.e. 11.07.2020, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent.

5.                In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that in the month of January 2019, the appellant changed the plan of the respondent without his knowledge and consent, which came to knowledge of the respondent when invoice dated 04.02.2019 was issued for the period of 01.01.2019 to 31.01.2019. It has further been stated that the purpose to install this connection was only to get incoming calls with the monthly rental of Rs.49/- which the appellant changed with the plan namely “Experience-LL49, Go-Green-Plan” with monthly rental of Rs.299/, for which the appellant also raised invoice, Annexure C-5. It has further been stated that even the advance payment of Rs.720/- was illegally adjusted by the appellant for the payment of changed rental plan.  It has further been stated that the impugned order is well reasoned and sustainable in the eyes of law. Lastly, stating that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint, the respondent prayed for dismissal of appeal with costs.

6.                After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, impugned order and the written arguments filed by the parties very carefully, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The clinching document to settle the dispute is Annexure R-3, placed on record by the appellant itself, on record of Ld. District Commission, which is copy of circular dated 11.4.2018, wherein it was clearly mentioned therein that “At the time of CAF filling, customer’s consent should be taken for conversion to general plan after first one year.”  Whether any such consent was ever sought by the appellant from the respondent was the only question, in the instant case, to decide it either in favour of the appellant or the respondent. However, perusal of record transpires that no cogent or convincing evidence by way of documentary evidence was brought on record of Ld. District Commission by the appellant to establish that consent of the respondent was sought for changing his existing plan to some other plan, thus, putting extra financial burden in terms of high rental for the other plan. The appellant could not change the plan of the respondent of its own. Rather before doing it, the appellant was supposed to inform the respondent with regard to other available plan(s) and terms and conditions thereof and then it was left open for the respondent to go for change in the plan and opt for plan of his choice. By not doing so, the appellant indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Commission, in our concerted view, rightly partly allowed the complaint by directing the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.403.79 to the respondent, which it illegally deducted towards higher rental plan besides awarding compensation etc.

7.                Therefore, in our concerted view, the impugned order, being legal and just, does not call for any interference and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10.              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

26.07.2022.

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad