IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 20th day of November, 2021.
Filed on 11-02-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)In
CC/No.30/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Ramachandran 1. The CEO/CMD
Karunyam The Registered and corporate office
Kaithavana, Kaniyakulam Bharath Sanchar Bhavan
Alappuzha-3 Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
(Party in person) Janpeth, New Delhi-110001
2. The chief General Manager
BSNL Kerala Telecom, Door
Sanchar Bhavan, PMG junction
Thiruvananthapuram-695033
3. The General Manager
BSNL Telecom District,
Sanchar Bhavan, Alappuzha
(Adv. Smt.K.B.Sindhu)
4. The District Collector
Alappuzha
5. Biju Varghese
Deputy Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha
6. The Villege Officer,
Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Material averment briefly stated are as follows:-
The complainant is working in the insurance sector. In connection with the busy nature of work complainant was in need of a mobile connection so as to attend to the calls of his clients and to contact new clients. Accordingly he had taken a BSNL post paid connection as No.8078141964. The account number maintained by BSNL for this connection was 547684770.
2. Though the complainant was in frequent use of the phone during the primary period of taking connection, the calls decreased during the end of 2017-18 since the business was dull. As such complainant was rarely using the mobile phone. Complainant used to remit the amount due as per the bills received in time and hence no bill is pending.
3. On 27.01.2020 opposite party No.6 the village officer Pazhaveed served him with a notice under RR act. The notice RRC No.2019/9131/04 dated 06.11.2019 mentions that there are dues of Rs.2284/- towards the mobile phone as on 01.03.18. On going through the notice complainant noticed that complainant No.5 has appointed opposite party No.6 as the officer to realise the above dues from the complainant through revenue recovery. The notice demands the complainant to pay Rs.2284/- along with 14% interest from 01.03.18.
4. Since revenue recovery notice was served upon him peoples began to view him as a person who defaults in paying the amounts due to government. The opposite parties primarily bound to send intimation letters/ messages to the customer for their default payments. If the customer fails to remit the dues in spite of the above, the opposite party BSNL is bound to serve him with a notice explaining the dues and allow a time limit to remit the dues. Only if the complainant fails to remit the dues RR steps can be initiated. Opposite parties also bound to explain the details of dues if any in the RR notice or should have attached a statement of accounts describing the explanation of the dues especially the period for which Rs.2284/- pertains to, nature of the dues, how the amount has been arrived at etc. However there is no such description/ explanation in the notice. No prior intimation was given to the complainant. So the act of opposite party No.1 to 3 in initiating RR steps is illegal and amounts to negligence.
5. According to the complainant he has no dues with mobile number 8078141964. On getting notice complainant searched the website of BSNL to get information regarding the arrears. The search revealed that no dues are pending. Hence the act of the BSNL amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the opposite party No.1 to 3 may be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost.
6. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The post paid connection number 8078141964 with account No. 547684770 had been provided from BSNL to Sri.Ramachandran K on 23.05.17. Monthly bill generates for post paid connection and intimation with amount to pay the last date of payment is given to the consumer message. The bills were generated upto 3rd May 2018. Invoice dated 03.04.18 amounts Rs.2248/- and invoice dtd. 03.05.18 amount Rs.556/-.
7. The contention of the complainant that he was not known about dues to be remitted is untrue. He was getting intimation of bill regularly. He neither complained about non-getting of bills at any point of time. The mobile number is a post paid connection and generates minimum plan amount bill every month even in the case of customer didn’t make any calls during a month also. The post paid connection was suspended on 07.05.18 and disconnected on 20.07.18 due to non-payment. The amount in notice is Rs.2,284/- with interest is the net due amount of customer to be paid after adjusting the security deposit taken for postpaid connection.
8. The claim for the complainant that he did not get any letter / message is totally wrong. As he is using post paid connection he will definitely get message intimation. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as his claim. The normal practice is to request revenue authority with necessary charges to realise the bill amount. The complainant has no genuine cause of action and reason to institute a complaint. He is not entitled to get any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Opposite party No.6 remained exparte.
9. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to 3?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost ?
- Reliefs and cost?
10. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 & A2 from the side of the complainant. Opposite party have not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1 & B2 were marked.
11. Point Nos.1 to 3:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.B1 invoice and B2 payments were marked from the side of the opposite party.
12. PW1, complainant is having a post paid connection from BSNL having No.807814 1964 and account no maintained by BSNL for the connection was 547684770. According to PW1 he was regularly paying the bill amounts. However he received Ext.A1 Revenue Recovery notice dtd. 6/11/2019 demanding an amount of Rs.2,798/-. According to him no amount is due from him to the BSNL and so they had no right to claim any amount from him. According to him issuance of Revenue Recovery notice caused injury to the dignity among relative and common public. Hence he filed the complaint for realizing an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 6th opposite party remained exparte. Though opposite parties 4 and 5 entered appearance no version was filed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a version contenting that two bills were pending. Invoice dtd. 3/4/2018 is Rs.2,248/- and invoice dtd 3/5/2018 for Rs.556/- remaining unpaid. Inspite of repeated notice and messages an amount was not paid and finally the matter was referred for Revenue Recovery. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.
13. The contention of PW1, complainant is that he was regular in paying the bills of BSNL on getting message. Later he informed BSNL authorities to disconnect his phone and adjust the security deposit in the bill amount. Per contra the contention taken by learned counsel appearing for BSNL is that for nonpayment of bills the connection was disconnected and the security deposit was adjusted in the bill and for the balance amount Revenue Recovery proceedings was initiated. During cross examination PW1 stated that he had given request in writing to adjust the bill amount in the security deposit but he could not produce any document to prove the same. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that disconnection was effected since the bill amount was not paid. However PW1 admitted that he has no complaint about the bill raised by BSNL. His only grievance is that without informing the bill amount Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against him which caused mental agony to him. Though PW1 stated that he was regular in paying the bills, from the version filed by opposite parties 1 to 3 it is seen that Rs.2,248/- being the amount of Invoice dtd. 3/4/2018 and Rs.556/- being the amount of Invoice dtd. 3/5/2018 are pending. PW1 has got a further case that from Ext.A2 which was downloaded from the internet there was no amount due in his account. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 3 explained that when the matter is referred to Revenue Recovery proceedings they will close the account and so in Ext.A2 it is shown that “no amount is due”. The evidence on record shows that an amount of Rs.2,798/- was due from PW1 being the bill amount of two months. The only grievance of PW1 is that he has not given a notice. But according to learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 3 they used to sent messages and letters regularly informing the amount. It is seen that since the amount was not paid Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated and opposite party 1 to 3 cannot be blamed for the same. Though PW1 has got a case that issuance of Revenue Recovery notice was shameful to him, he has not examined any witness to prove the same. So it can be concluded that issuance of Ext.A1 Revenue Recovery notice was to collect the bill amount due from the complainant and so opposite parties 1 to 3 cannot be blamed for the same. PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. However he could not explain as to why such an exorbitant amount is claimed. He only says that he had to spend a lot of money. From the evidence on record it can be seen that there was no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 and they issued Ext.A1 Revenue Recovery notice to collect the amount due from the complainant. In said circumstances complainant is not entitled for any relief and so the complaint is only to be dismissed.
14. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 20th day of November, 2021.
Sd//-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ramachadran.K (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Revenue Recovery Notice 6/11/2019
Ext.A2 - Print out from BSNL Website
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Invoices
Ext.B2 - Payments
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
