State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.M., B.S.N.L. & Another vs Sri M.K. Verma on 5 December, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no.270 of 2008 Against judgement dated 12.6.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad, in Consumer Complaint no.95 of 2007. G.M., B.S.N.L. & another - Appellants .vs. Sri M.K. Verma - Respondent For Appellant : M/s B.K. Pathak & A.Pratik, Advocates. For Respondent : None. Before: Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta- Member Judgment Kalyani Kar Roy: The opposite party, General Manager, B.S.N.L., Dhanbad is appellant and has challenged the judgement dated 12.06.2008, passed in Consumer Complaint no. 95 of 2007, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.1,000.00 as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.500.00 to the complainant-respondent.
2. After receiving appeal notice, instead of appearing either in person or through a lawyer, the respondent-complainant sent his objection/rejoinder to the instant appeal on affidavit alongwith relevant papers by post, for consideration in this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent is a subscriber of B.S.N.L. having telephone no.2251422 (old) and 2245704 (new). The complainant received telephone bills dated 11.12.2005, 11.10.2006 and 11.12.2006 and paid those bills earlier against proper receipts. But he was given one more bill for another telephone no.2245704 for the period from 01.8.2005 to 03.11.2005 due to non functioning of his earlier telephone no.2251422. According to the complainant, in order to harass and with oblique motive, the B.S.N.L. started issuing two parallel bills to the complainant against both telephone numbers since 01.8.2005 to 30.11.2005 vide bill dated 11.12.2005. On complain the opposite party stopped issuing two parallel bills to the complainant, but with malafied intention, inspite of payment of the bills in question, arbitrarily disconnected his telephone connection without any notice. Hence, the complainant filed complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite party to restore his telephone and to pay Rs.5,000.00 for professional loss and Rs.25,000.00 as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.
4. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that telephone of the respondent was disconnected for non payment of bill dated 11.12.2005 for Rs.108.00. Bills dated 11.12.2005 was prepared for both the telephone numbers, i.e. 2251422 and 2245704 for the period during which telephone no.2251422 (old number) also worked. The said telephone no.2251422 was changed to telephone no.2245704 in the month of August 2005 on account of some technical reasons and though telephone no.2251422 was in working condition. Hence, the two bills dated 11.12.2005 were rightly prepared for telephone nos.2251422 and 2245704 for the same period. The appellant was neither negligent nor deficient in service.
5. After hearing Counsel for the appellant and perusing the materials placed before us including the written objection to the Memorandum of appeal, the impugned judgment and on scrutinising the bills in question, we find that three bills dated 11.12.2005 for Rs.882.00, Rs.788.00 and Rs.108.00 were issued for two telephone numbersold and new, provided to the respondent respectively for the period from 01.6.2005 to 01.8.2005 and 01.8.2005 to 30.11.2005 and 01.6.2005 to 01.8.2005. It is evident that during this period the old number also worked for some time and thereafter, on account of some technical fault, the B.S.N.L. changed the old number to new number and, therefore, two bills-one of old number and another of new number were rightly issued. Bill for Rs.882.00 of the old telephone number dated 11.12.2005 for the period from 01.6.2005 to 01.8.2005 contained rental charges for the period from 01.8.2005 to 30.11.2005, which was not paid by the complainant. Subsequently another bill dated 11.12.2005 for Rs.108.00 for the same old number was issued for only the consumption charges (of calls made) during the period from 01.6.2005 to 01.8.2005 without any rental charge, which was paid on 08.5.2007 i.e. only after telephone line was disconnected for non payment thereof and was immediately restored after payment. As per the telephone Rule 443, if any bill amount remained unpaid by the subscriber, the appellant department has got every right to disconnect the line without prior notice. It can not be counted as deficiency in service on the part of the appellant department. Accordingly, in our considered view, the District Forum erred in holding the appellant to be deficient in service. The findings of District Forum are not based on correct appreciation of the materials on record and the impugned judgment is not justified.
6. Accordingly, impugned judgement dated 12.06.2008, passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad, in Consumer Complaint no.95 of 2007 is set aside. This appeal is allowed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
The 5th December, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member Member President