Tripura

StateCommission

A/34/2018

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Susanta Chakraborty - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. Kakali Deb, Miss. Ananya Deb

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.34.2018

 

 

 

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,

Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,

Janapath Road, Janapath,

New Delhi- 110001.

 

2. General Manager, 

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala,

Tripura (West) - 799001.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

Vs

 

1. Sri Sushanta Chakraborty,

S/o Sri Dilip Chakraborty,

East Pratapgarh, P.S. East Agartala,

P.O. Pratapgarh, West Tripura- 799004.

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mrs. Kakali Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                            Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          11.03.2019.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.131 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed the appellants, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/ BSNL) to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as complainant), the respondent herein, and receive the call charges up to the maximum credit limit given by them to the complainant amounting to Rs.12,000/- till 19.10.2017 and thereafter, call charge as per call list from 26.10.2017. Payment is to be made within two months.

2. Heard Mrs. Kakali Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-BSNL as well as Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant.
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Complainant, Sri Sushanta Chakraborty, S/o Sri Dilip Chakraborty filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum. Case of the complainant in short is that, he was the subscriber of post paid mobile connection, being mobile No.9436129036 taken from the opposite party, BSNL. On 22^nd October, 2017, the complainant went to Moscow, Russia and taken international roaming facility in his aforesaid mobile phone. However, when he went to Russia he was given local SIM which was used by him most of the time, but the opposite party, BSNL sending message informed him that the maximum limit of the bill of Rs.12,000/- already crossed on 18.10.2017. Therefore, the mobile connection was disconnected from 18.10.2017 to 27.10.2017. On his return to India, BSNL issued bill on 05.11.2017 for amounting to Rs.53,770/- for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.10.2017. Opposite party, BSNL could not provide him the details of the bill. As the bill was not correct, complainant suffered a lot and thus there was deficiency of service. He prayed for cancellation of the telephone bill as provided by the opposite party, BSNL and also to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation.

4. Opposite party, BSNL appeared and filed its written statement denying the claim. It is stated in the written statement that the bill for Rs.53,770/- including roaming charges was issued to the customer-complainant and on application filed by the complainant details of call records including international roaming charges along with phone numbers provided to the customer. There was no deficiency of service; rather the actual bill amount was claimed. Therefore, opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
5. Complainant produced the letters to Senior Manager (BSNL), original bill, copy of invitation letter which was marked as Exhibit-1 series. He also submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and also examined himself.
6. On the other hand, the opposite party, BSNL produced the bill, copy of call list details, complaint letter by the complainant, letter by the complainant, reply to the complaint and copy of high usage report. Opposite party also examined one witness, namely, Utpal Chowdhuri, Accounts Officer of BSNL.
7. The learned District Forum after going through the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment wherein it is stated that one Dilip Chakraborty filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and not only that even it is mentioned that opposite party examined one witness, Assistant General Manager, BSNL instead of Accounts Officer, BSNL.
8. Upon going through the evidence on record as well as the findings of the learned District Forum we are of the opinion that apparently the learned District Forum failed to apply its mind, as in case of Sushanta Chakraborty, complainant, the learned District Forum has written that the applicant is one Dilip Chakraborty, who is the father of the complainant. Not only that, the learned District Forum also did not discuss in detail as to why the bill submitted by the opposite party-BSNL is abnormal.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh.

At the time of decision, the learned District Forum is at liberty to decide the case on the evidence on record as well as to allow the parties to produce any additional evidence, if so advised. The learned District Forum is also directed to issue notice upon the parties for their appearance and after their appearance to decide the case afresh as indicated above. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Appellant is at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit lying with this Commission, if so advised.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura