National Consumer Disputes Redressal
D.P. Sharma vs M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. on 9 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1072 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/02/2015 in Appeal No. 1227/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. D.P. SHARMA S/O SHRI SOHAN LAL SHARMA, 130 SHAKTI NAGAR,NIWARU ROAD,JHOTWARA JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. DISTRCIT OFFICE M.I ROAD,JAIPUR, THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT: JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 2. INCHARGE,DOORSANCHAR KENDRA , HIGH COURT CAMPUS, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent : M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.
Dated : 09 Jul 2015 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant/petitioner is a subscriber of the WLL Phone No. 2174088. He was issued a bill dated 13.1.2009 for Rs.1099/-. 29.04.2009 was the last date for making payment of the said bill. On 30.4.2009, the complainant approached the counter at High Court for depositing a cheque for Rs.1099/- towards payment of the aforesaid bill. The payment was not accepted at the aforesaid counter and the complainant was asked to make payment in cash with a Post Office. Since he was not carrying cash with him, he borrowed money from a colleague Advocate and made payment in cash at the post office. After making payment, he approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation on the ground that he was harassed on account of the failure of the opposite party to accept payment at the High Court counter.
2. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party / respondent. It was stated in the reply that the last date for deposit being 29.04.2009, the payment sought to be made by cheque on 30.04.2009, was rightly refused at the High Court counter. It was further stated in the reply that after the last state stipulated for making payment, the bill could be paid along with late fee of 2% of the bill amount, subject to a minimum of Rs.10/-.
3. Vide its order dated 04.02.2015, the concerned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. It is not in dispute that 29.4.2009 was the last date for making payment of the bill issued to the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the complainant approached the counter at High Court only on 30.4.2009, which was one day after the last date stipulated in the bill for making payment. A perusal of the bill would show that the payment at the High Court or even in the post office could be made only upto 29.4.2009. Thereafter, it could be made only at the designated counter of BSNL along with the prescribed late payment penalty. The payment therefore, was rightly refused at the High Court counter. Having delayed the payment, the complainant ought to have made it only at the designated counter of BSNL, along with the prescribed penalty. No deficiency on the part of the respondent / opposite party is made out on account of refusing to accept payment by cheque at the High Court counter on 30.4.2009.
5. It is contended by the complainant that the post office having accepted late payment on 30.4.2009, there is no reason why the High Court counter should not have accepted the same. It has come in the reply filed by the opposite party that even the post office was not justified in accepting payment in cash on 30.4.2009, and the explanation from the concerned post office was being sought. In our view, acceptance of payment by the post office, against the instructions of the BSNL, does not constitute any deficiency of service on the part of the BSNL in not accepting the payment at the High Court counter. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions printed on the bill issued to him and as per those terms, the payment at the High Court counter could have been made only by 29.4.2009. Thereafter, it could be made only at the designated counter of BSNL.
For the reasons stated herein, we find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the fora below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER