West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/67/2017

Sri Birendra Chandra Bhattacherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom, Bharat SancharNoigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

 The complainant/petitioner files this case Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the compliment/petitioner Birendra Chandra Bhattacharjee, permanent resident of village & P.O.-  Barabagan (Ekarpally), P.S.- Suri, District- Birbhum, in brief is that he is/was customer under the OP/BSNL having its telephone connection being number (03462) 259 692 customer ID 300 3797 264. He used to pay bills and other charges to the OP office regularly within due date prescribed by the OP/ BSNL. 

  It is the further case of the compliment that at the time of installation of the telephone in question of the complainant deposited Rs. 1440/- to the OP/ BSNL as security money with condition to return back the same when connection of the said telephone will be surrendered.

            This telephone connection was in operative since 18-08-2015. The Complainant made a complaint for the same to the local JTO on 19-08-2015, to the General Manager dated 21-08-2015 and again made another complaint at the JTO's Complaint Book on 29-08-2015. But, all are in vein.

 Thereafter, with reference to his previous complaints, the petitioner made a number of complaints from time to time to the officer of the OP/BSNL i.e. Accounts Officer (TR) BSNL, Suri Telecom Exchange by letter dated 21-09-2015 and to the SDE (Internal) Landline Service BSNL, Suri Telecom Exchange by letter dated 14-10-2015. 

 

(Page 1 of 6)

 

 

 Despite that, the OP's department continued to claim telephone bills of Rs. 379/-, Rs.  778/-, Rs.  542/-, Rs.  778/-. But the landline in question was in operative since 18-08-2015.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for: 

            (A) Pay a compensation to the petitioner of  Rs.  5 Lakhs or the amount of money which the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper considering the deficiency in service, gross negligence, unwanted harassment and deprivation towards the petitioner from the part of the OP.

            (B) Pay appropriate litigation cost to the petitioner.

            (C) Refund the security deposit/Advanced rental of Rs. 1440/- after adjustment of the telephone bill for the period form 01-08-2015 to 17-08-2015 as resumption of telephone service is not being sought for after more than 8 years' of deprivation from the part of the OP.

            (D) Provide any other relief/relives to the petitioner as the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper.

            (E) Deposit all the admissible amount to the petitioner in the instant case, in the Savings Bank Account Number- 04540110030097 (in the name of the petitioner and another under UCO Bank, Suri Branch by NEFT, vide IFSC code- UCBA0000454 and MICR code-731028302).

            The OP/BSNL has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The OP/BSNL stated in para 11 of their written version that "in the present case also no amount of money was claimed the opposite party department. After calculation it is found that this petitioner is entitled to get only rupees 75 from the opposite party department."

            The OP/BSNL did not file any evidence-in-chief in support of their case, nor produced any proof to substantiate their defence.

            Ultimately the OP/BSNL prayed for dismissal of the case.

It appears from the case record that many opportunities have been given to the OP/ BSNL for filing written notes on argument but they did not avail the same. Even, on the date of argument OP/ BSNL did not take part.

Complainant submitted his written notes on argument (W/N/A)  with copy. Copy not served as none appears on calls from OP sides. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant's side and

(Page 2 of 6)

 

 

those were compared with original documents. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case. 

 Hard Ld. Advocate for the complainant. 

   Considered.

             Perused all the documents.

                                              Points for determination/Issues

(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term 'Consumer' of the C.P. Act ?

2) Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?

3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

4) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

                                                     Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

The petitioner is a bonafide customer of the OP/BSNL landline service of Suri Telecom District being phone number (03462) 259 692, customer ID 300 3797 264, account number 8003798432. Complainant deposited Rs. 500/- as registration fees and Rs. 1440/- as refundable advance rental amount. Thus, the petitioner/complainant is the consumer under the OP/BSNL and OP/BSNL is the service provider. But, evidently till today the OP BSNL has not paid the security deposit to the complainant. Hence, till such payment he is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

 Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP BSNL is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action i.e. latter to OP by the complainant after dated 21-08-2015 and the case has been filed on 21-08-2017 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Though, Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 stipulates determination of any telegraph line disputes by "Arbitration", the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent Reportable Judgement dated

(Page 3 of 6)

 

 

 

16-02-2022, passed by the Bench of  Hon'ble three Judges, namely Dr.Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J; Surya Kant, J; &VikramNath; J in Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited versus Ajay Kumar Agarwal [vide Civil Appeal number 923 of 2017 arising out of SLP(C)  number 28615 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No- 1389 of 2022 & Civil Appeal No- 4274 of 2016], has held that "......In the present case, the existence of an arbitral remedy will not, therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. The insertion of the expression ‘telecom services’ in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986. On the contrary, the definition of the expression ‘service’ in Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services." ( Vide page 14 of the Judgement). The Hon'ble Court while taking such decision inter- alia relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structure Limited Vs. Anil Patni (2020) 10 SCC 783 to the effect that "It has consistently been held by this Court that the remedies available under the provisions of the C.P. Act are additional remedies over & above the other remedies including those available under any special Statutes & that the availability of an alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the C.P. Act." 

Point Nos. 3 and 4:

The OP admitted in his written version that the Telephone connection of the petitioner was inoperative & it is also clear therefrom that no arrangement was made subsequently by the OP/BSNL to repair/resume the same despite receiving frequent complaints as to lying dead of the said service since 18/08/2015. Rather, the OP/BSNL continued to claim Bills for the dead land line connection & adjusted the Bills with the Security Deposit Rs. 1440/- even during pendency of this case.

The petitioner was not a defaulter in payment of telephone Bills as the last Bill was paid on 31/07/2015 by Receipt No. SUR 3462129081500032, dated-29/08/2015 though it has been stated by the OP to have been paid up to 27/02/2015. The petitioner had legitimate right to have that telephone service from the OP/BSNL in terms of the deposited Registration fee Rs. 500/- & advance rental Rs. 1440/- (Refundable) but, the petitioner had been to suffer/deprive that entails him due relief(s) therefor.

(Page 4 of 6)

 

           

The OP/BSNL did not pay the refundable advance rental amount of Rs. 1440/- to the complainant till today. 

                The OP/BSNL stated in Para 11 of their written version that "in the present case also no amount of money was claimed the opposite party department. After calculation it is found that this petitioner is entitled to get only rupees 75 from the opposite party department."

               Our observation: 

 No evidence-in-chief has yet been filed by the OP/BSNL. Mere filing of written version does not substantiate their defence.

In view of our observation, the OP/BSNL cannot forfeit the security amount of Rs. 1440/- for the landline telephone connection in question by hook or crook.

                Telephone service is an emergency service not only it works as a medium of communication but also provides security in respect of calling to Police Station, Fire Brigade Office, Doctors, Hospitals, etc. apart from communication with near and dear ones. Hence, after circulation of a fixed landline telephone number to all concerned; its sudden disruption of service for a prolonged period makes hindrance of communication not only to the consumer but also the others who want to communicate with the petitioner. The petitioner, being an aged, infirm heart patient had a very need of that telephone communication. But, the petitioner has to suffer from the lack of the concerned service due to whimsical or arbitrary attitude and gross negligence of the OP's side in respect of disposing the petitioner's complaints and resuming the service. The entire acts from the part of the OP fall within the meaning of deficiency in service towards the petitioner as well as causing harassment, mental agony and deprivation despite depositing the advance rental and registration charge to the OP's department. The OP/BSNL did not repair/resume the service in anyway, despite being an emergency one and continued claiming Bills. 

                 So, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP/BSNL.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

(Page 5 of 6)

 

Hence, it is,

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.F. Case No. 67/2017 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP/BSNL is directed to pay refund the security deposit Rs. 1,440/- (One thousand four hundred forty only) to the complainant after deducting the outstanding bill amount for the period from 01/08/2015 to 17/08/2015 i.e., the period prior to becoming inoperative of the complainant’s telephone service.

The OP/BSNL is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner as against dereliction of their official duties, gross negligence towards the complainant and also mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

The OP/BSNL is directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount to the petitioner in the instant case  in the Savings Bank Account Number- 04540110030097 (in the name of the petitioner and another under UCO Bank, Suri Branch by NEFT, vide IFSC code- UCBA0000454 and MICR code-731028302).

The entire decree will be complied by the OP/BSNL within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP/BSNL failed to comply the decree the complainant would be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.                                                 

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.