State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Chardra Goyal vs Subhash Vhandra Goyal on 12 December, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 / 2014
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
through its Deputy General Manager
O/o GMTD, Telephone Department
Behind Haridwar Roadways Bus Stand
Haridwar
2. Accounts Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o GMTD, Telephone Department
Behind Haridwar Roadways Bus Stand
Haridwar
...... Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2
Versus
1. Sh. Subhash Chand Goyal S/o late Sh. Shivcharan Dass
Goyal Garments, New Market
Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur
District Haridwar
...... Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Postmaster
Post Office, Jwalapur
District Haridwar
...... Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 3
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Dehradun, Learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Dated: 12/12/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 236 of 2012.2
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that respondent No. 1 - complainant is having a telephone connection No. 01334-255939 installed at his shop for the last about 10 years' and he is regularly depositing the telephone bills. For the last 16 months', the complainant has not received any telephone bill. On 14.05.2012; 07.07.2012 and 11.08.2012, the complainant lodged the written complaint regarding non-receipt of telephone bills. On inquiry, the complainant was informed that every month, the telephone bills are sent to the Post Office, Jwalapur, as the bill distribution work has been handed over to the Postal Department. Inspite of several complaints, the complainant has not received the telephone bill. On account of delayed payment of bill, the telephone services of the complainant are being stopped and after payment of required fee, the same are restored. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellants - opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the bill distribution work has been handed over by them to respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 3; that the Telephone Department is regularly sending the bills to the Postal Department; that the complainant was duly informed about the bills on his mobile No. 9927016442 and the bills were also sent at his e-mail address and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that since several months, the telephone bills have not been received at the Post Office for distribution to the respective consumers and that there has not been any default or alike on their part.
35. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 30.01.2014 and directed the appellants - opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1 - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order and also to deposit sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the District Forum towards punitive damages as well as penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Commission.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 2 and gone through the record. We have also perused the written arguments submitted by respondent No. 1 - complainant through registered post.
7. The appellants have taken the stand that the bill distribution work has been assigned by them to the Postal Department and it is the Postal Department, who has to serve the telephone bill upon the consumer. The Postal Department has clearly averred in their written statement that for the last several months, they have not received the telephone bills for distribution, otherwise they would have distributed the same.
8. The complainant was repeatedly making complaints regarding non-receipt of the telephone bills, but no proper heed was being paid by the appellants to the grief of the complainant and he was being paid to run from pillar to post for getting his telephone bills. On account of delayed receipt of telephone bills on certain occasions, the complainant could not deposit the same within the stipulated period mentioned in the bill, which resulted in stoppage of his telephone 4 services, for there being no fault on his part. The telephone department ought to have issued the duplicate telephone bill to the complainant, which could have redressed his grievance and in that event, he would have been able to deposit the same within the stipulated period and would not have brought his consumer complaint before the District Forum. Thus, there has certainly been deficiency in service on the part of the appellants by not taking proper action on the complaints lodged by the complainant and not redressing his grievance. However, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-.
9. So far as the direction by the District Forum to the appellants to deposit sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards punitive damages as well as penalty is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Motors (India) Private Limited Vs. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat and another; AIR 2015 Supreme Court 562, has held that the causing of loss has to be established and the award of punitive damages against the manufacturer / dealer was set aside. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Amit Swami Vs. Coca Cola India Ltd. and others; II (2007) CPJ 256 (NC), has held that the reliefs granted by Consumer Fora are enumerated in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Fora can not pass any order for levy of penalty being credited in Consumer Welfare Fund. In view of above law, the direction given by the District Forum to the appellants for depositing sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the District Forum, need to be set aside and the same is accordingly quashed.
510. In view of the above discussion, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified as such.
11. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 30.01.2014 passed by the District Forum is modified and the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The direction issued by the District Forum to the appellants to deposit sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the District Forum towards punitive damages as well as penalty, is hereby expunged / set aside. No order as to costs.
(BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K