State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam ... vs Sharad Kumar Agarwal on 16 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 230 / 2009
General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Office of G.M.T.D, Haridwar
......Appellant/ Opposite Party
Versus
Sharad Kumar Agarwal
29, Kapil Vihar, Sanyas Road
Kankhal, Haridwar
......Respondent/ Complainant
Shri M. K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Shri K. P. Singh, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, Chairman
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 16/05/2012
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short "B.S.N.L.) against the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar in Consumer Complaint 188/2009. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the B.S.N.L. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,262/- together with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receiving the said amount till the date of actual payment, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant, Shri Sharad Kumar Agarwal, applied to B.S.N.L. for an internet data card. The B.S.N.L. issued a demand note for Rs. 3,262/-, which was deposited by the complainant on 14.07.2009. However, the opposite party did not issue the 2 internet data card to the complainant immediately and kept him waiting upto on 06.08.2009. On 06.08.2009 the complainant was given an inactivated internet data card and was told that it would be activated within 2 hours or at the most by the end of the evening of 06.08.2009. The complainant has alleged that the internet data card in question did not activate even upto 05.09.2009. The complainant made several oral and written complaints to the authorities of the B.S.N.L., but they did not give any satisfactory answer or reason to him as to why the internet data card was not activated. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 27.11.2009 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the B.S.N.L. through its General Manager, has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant - opposite party has argued that the appellant had issued the internet data card on 14.07.2009 to the complainant after he deposited the required amount of Rs. 3,262/-. According to him, there was no technical defect or any other reason for non-activation of the internet data card, but the computer of the complainant was infected with some virus due to which the internet data card got corrupted. Thus, the appellant has not committed any deficiency in service. The District Forum, without considering this fact of the case, has erred in holding the appellant liable for deficiency in service. He pleaded that the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.
6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The averment made by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the internet data card was issued on 14.07.2009 appears to be false because 3 the Public Information Officer of the B.S.N.L. has informed the complainant, under Right to Information Act, 2005, vide its letter dated 15.10.2010 (Paper No. 47) that the internet data card was activated on 06.08.2010. Though, the appellant has objected to this letter stating that it was not filed before the District Forum and, thus, the letter is beyond the scope of the case, but this letter certainly helps in adjudicating the dispute whether the internet data card issued on 14.07.2009 or 06.08.2010. The fact that it was activated on 06.08.2009, as per record of the appellant, shows that the B.S.N.L. had issued it on 06.08.2009 and not on 14.07.2009.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant, in support of the allegation that the internet data card did not work from the very beginning, referred to certain letters sent to B.S.N.L. by the complainant. The complainant, in his letter dated 12.08.2009 (Paper No. 11) addressed to General Manager, B.S.N.L., has clearly stated that the internet data card was given to him on 06.08.2009. He has also requested that the internet data card be activated immediately. Since, the appellant could not show that this letter was duly replied and it was controverted that the internet data card was not given on 06.08.2009, but it was given on 14.07.2009 and it was activated on 06.08.2009, we come to the conclusion that the allegation made by the complainant against the B.S.N.L. is true. Again, vide his letter dated 17.08.2009 (Paper No. 12) the complainant - respondent has requested to General Manager, B.S.N.L. that the internet data card was still not working. Again, vide his letter dated 28.08.2009 (Paper Nos. 13 & 14), the complainant has informed the General Manager, B.S.N.L. that no one from the Telephone Department is responding to his letters and the internet data card issued to him is not working. In this letter the complainant - respondent has also informed the General Manager, B.S.N.L. that if he did not receive any response from the B.S.N.L. office, than he would file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. It appears that, even after this letter, the appellant did not take any action and this led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The appellant's indifferent attitude towards the respondent is quite apparent from these 4 letters and such an attitude definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
8. The appellant, while contesting the case, has taken the stand that the internet data card got corrupted due to virus in the respondent's computer. In this regard the appellant has failed to submit any evidence. We are also unable to accept this explanation with regard to non-working/non- activation of the internet data card. Generally, these days almost every computer is equipped with such virus detecting software, which can scan, before starting the job, whether the computer is infected with virus or not. If the virus is found in the computer then that can be killed or removed with another software, technically known as vaccine. The appellant should have checked the respondent's computer before presuming that the computer was infected with some virus. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant is not acceptable and the appeal is devoid of merit. However, we find that the interest awarded by the District Forum @ 9 % per annum is on a higher side. The reasonable rate of interest should be @ 7% per annum. Further, the interest is awarded in lieu of compensation and, therefore, there is no justification for awarding an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and, thus, this part of the said order is liable to be set aside and the impugned order is modifiable accordingly.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 02.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7% per annum and the order in respect of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is set aside. Rest of the order is confirmed. Cost of appeal made easy.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B. C. KANDPAL)