State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Manager, B.S.N.L vs Sri Prabir Kumar Das on 25 February, 2009
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO-FA/08/305 DATE OF FILING : 7.8.08 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:25.2.09 APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS : 1.
The General Manager, B.S.N.L. Krishnagar Telecom District, Nakshatra Bhavan, PO- Krishnagar, Police Station, Kotwali, Dist- Nadia.
2. The Accounts Officer (T.R) B.S.N.L Krishnagar. P.S- Kotwali, District- Nadia.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :
1.
Sri Prabir Kumar Das.
Son of Late Jugal Kisore Das, Of H.K. Sarkar Lane, Golapatti, PO- Krishnagar, P.S- Kotwali, District- Nadia.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE :
MEMBER : Shri.P.K. Chattopadhyay.
MEMBER : Shri. Shankar Coari.
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT :
Shri S. Sikdar, Shri S. Das. ( Advocates) FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Shri S. Ghatak, Shri A. Sarkar , Sk Rahim Buksh, Shri Indra Chatterjee . (Advocates) Shri P.K. Chattopadhyay,. Member, This appeal arose out of judgemant and order in DCDRF Nadia in case no NAD/66/O/2006 where the Complainant Sri Prabir Kumar Dass complaint related to telephone bearing no KSH 256493, located at the residence of the Complainant , the bills in respect of which were used to be paid regularly , with usual payment quantum being around of Rs. 650/- per cycle. On 5.5.05 for the cycle 3-4/05 the Complainant received a bill dated 5.5.05 for an amount of of Rs. 1594/- , when a dispute was raised on the given amount of the bill stating the same was on the high side. Thereafter the Complainant received telephone bill dated 5.7.05 for an amount of Rs. 9822/- and then a bill dated 5.9.05 for an amount of Rs. 1453/- and thereafter received another bill dated 5.11.05 for Rs. 2913/- and then a bill dated 5.1.06 for an amount Rs. 1676/-. Calling that these bills were excessive, exaggerated, unscientific and without any basis where the Complainant did not actually make that much usage of the telephone for the given period, a written objection was filed before the OPs namely the General Manager BSNL Krishnagar Telecom District and the Accounts officer (TR) , BSNL, Krishnagar Telephone Dist, when the Complainant chose not to pay those supposed arbitrary and exaggerated bills. The OPs disconnected the telephone line on 21.11.05 without any notice thereafter and no effort was made on part of the OPs either to remove the defects in the billing/ metering system or the issues raised by the Complainant in his objection were addressed and /or resolved & thus the complaint seeking for restoration of telephone connection and for payment of compensation for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.
The OPs namely BSNL contested the case filing WV when given allegation were denied contending that the Complainant having a telephone with STD facility and dynamic locking system got no cause of action because the Complainants petition was totally misconceived , malafide and motivated. Arguing that the given telephone bills reflected actual telephone calls made by the Complainant and there being no contrary record the complaint was sought to be dismissed. It was also pointed out that as per provisions the line was finally disconnected for non payment of consumption bills through due process firstly by making the telephone communication one way and then by final disconnection. Referring to clause 7 (b) of Indian Telegraph Act the OPs contended that there being clear and unequivocal provision aforesaid for resolution of the given dispute, the complaint was not maintainable and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed with cost. The Ld. Forum after hearing both sides passed its judgement and order as under :
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost o Rs. 500 /- ( Rupees five hundred only).
The OP is directed to submit revised bills on average basis from the last paid up bills to downward 5 months against the disputed bills, for making payment by the complainant.
After the payment of these revised bills and token bills for keeping the telephone receiver in his possession are made by the complainant his telephone connection shall be restored. Further the OP is directed to pay Rs, 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment of the complainant. All the above actions have to be completed within 45 days from the date of payment of average bill, token bills, and payment of compensation same within the due date with the fear of disconnection of his telephone line . The Complainant , Pabitra Kr Das has stated in his written complaint dtd 8.8.05 to the General Manager, District Telecom Service , Nadia, B.S.N.L Krishnagar received by the Department on 8.8.05 under copy to S.D.E. ( Internal) and S.D.E. ( External) , B.S.N.L. Krishnagar that when he approached the S.D.E( Internal ) to pay the bill dtd 5.5.05, as he said verbally that the bill amount was correct and the complainant paid the bill with the hard ship as he stated in his complaint.
Subsequently , the complainant received the mixed bill dtd. 5.7.05 for Rs. 9822/- ( Rupees nine thousand eight hundred twenty two only) for the period 1.5.05 to 30.6.05 and he did not pay the bill. The due date for the bill was or before 11.8.05. Instead of paying this exaggerated bill within the due date on 11.8.05 the complainant submitted his representation to the concerned authority on 8.8.05.
Now , from the available records and submission by the OP it is evident tht the Op has not taken any action to the representation dtd 8.8.05 submitted by the complainant. Instead the Op continued to sent exaggerated bill as is evident from the record, i.e. bill dated 5.7.05 to 5.9.05 5.11.05 5.1.06, subsequently, also disconnected the telephone connection 21.11.05 , Further , in his submission the OP mentioned that this case could have referred to Arbitrator under Section 7B of Indian Telegraphic Act. But as per record, there is nothing available whether the OP has informed the same to the complainant or approached themselves if permissible under the said Act. Hence, its submission of the OP couldl not be sustained. Hence, this arbitrary action on the part of the Op forced the complainant to file this instant case for redressal his genuine will be made within 45 days from the dte of this order. In default the amount shall accrue interest @ 10% per annum till realization of the entire amount from the date of this order.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below the OPs in the Forum namely The G.M. BSNL Krishnagar Telecom District & Account Officer (T.R) B.S.N.L Krishnagar. filed this appeal stating inter alia that the Ld. Forum below ought to have considered that any dispute by and between the parties on allegations of excess billing should be referred to the Arbitrator as per provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act , which provisions stood affirmed by successive decisions of Honble Superior Courts . It was also argued that the given telephone connection was disconnected in terms of rule 443 of rules as made under Indian Telegraph Act, which was perfectly legal and the judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below was patently bad and is therefore liable to be set aside being not maintainable.
The Respondent namely Shri Prabir Kr Das entered appearance and disputed the contentions of the Appellant, supporting the judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below . The matter was heard from respective sides with filing of WNA by the Appellant.
DISCUSSION (A) There were two essential ingredients in the complaint lodged in the Forum below which are as under:-
(i) Allegations of incorrect and inflated telephone consumption bills for given periods.
(ii) Disconnection of telephone connection without notice.
Both the allegations aforesaid were denied by the Appellants/OPs when the Ld. Forum below passed impugned judgement and orders. Referring to the matter of supposed incorrect / inflated consumption bills the applicable provisions under the slatute relating to provisions 7(b) under Indian Telegraph Act 1885, as amended , were cited which inter lia provides as under :
On the issue of disconnection of given telephone , section 443 of the telegraph rules was cited by the Appellant which is as under:-
The Appellants also argued that the grievances involving issues aforesaid were always sought to be resolved within the parameters set down under the law cited hereinbefore and this position has been affirmed and corroborated by successive judgements in various Forums set up under the provisions of C.P. Act 1986 and also in other Superior judicial Forums.
(B) We find that the Appellants stance aforesaid is justifiable as the statute which is supreme , has inbuilt mechanism on redressal of given consumer grievances and the allegations of the nature raised in the present Complainant case be reasonably addressed and resolved under aforesaid provisions. In above view of fact and law the impugned judgement of the Ld. Forum below is not sustainable being bad in law and the same is therefore liable to be set aside. The given allegations of incorrect/ inflated consumption bill is accordingly liable to be adjudicated under the provisions of 7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as amended , through appointment of arbitrator, the onus of which would rest with the Appellants namely BSNL , on the given fact and circumstances, of this case.
As for the disconnection of the given telephone for non payment of consumption bills, we find no impropriety on part of the Appellants whatsoever, particularly on the face of rule 433 of telegraph rules under Indian Telegraph Act where the telephone subscriber , the Complainant/ Respondent in this case was liable to pay requisite consumption charges as per provisions laid down there, but which was not followed by him.
(C ) Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed on contest without cost with directions laid down in the ordering part.
Order The Appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is set aside. The Appellants are directed to refer the dispute relating to given no of allegedly incorrect / inflated telephone consumption bills to an Arbitrator who may be appointed under the provisions of section 7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act under due intimation to the Respondent / Complainant giving proper opportunity for suitable representation of the Complainant/Respondent . As for disconnection of the said telephone we direct that the Appellant would take steps to explain the provisions under rule 433 of the telegraph rules to the Respondent /Complainant for any opportunity for reconnection of the disconnected telephone subsequent to payment of requisite charges as provided under law with payment of reconnection charges as due.
Member Member