State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Sri. Shyamal Kanti Deb on 20 February, 2020
Daily Order Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. Case No.A.27.2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath Road, Janpath New Delhi - 110001. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, North Eastern Circle, Agartala Region, Kaman Chowmohani, P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin: 799001. ... ... ... ... Appellants/Opposite parties. Vs Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb, S/o Late Upendra Ch. Deb, Block No.9, Quarter No.IV/13, Malancha Niwash, Govt. Quarter Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, P.S. N.C.C, District - West Tripura. ... ... ... ... Respondent/Complainant. Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha President, State Commission Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das, Member, State Commission For the Appellants: Ms. Kakali Deb, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Adv. Date of Hearing: 15.01.2020. Date of Delivery of Judgment: 20.02.2020. J U D G M E N T
U.B. Saha, J, The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another against the judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.28 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint petition directing both the opposite parties, the appellants herein, to pay compensation amounting to Rs.6,000/- to the complainant and also Rs.4000/- as costs of litigation, in total Rs.10,000/-. Opposite parties are also directed to comply with the order within two months, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made.
Regarding the impugned bill, the learned District Forum further directed the opposite parties shall arrange for furnishing detailed breakup of the bill to the complainant within one month after receipt of copy of the judgment. The opposite parties, BSNL thereafter, if deems fit and necessary may proceed further with the bill as per law after observing all formalities.
Heard Ms. Kakali Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/BSNL) as well as Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties having a post paid mobile connection bearing No.9436125112 since the year 2005-2006. He is holding the post of General Manager, TIDC and presently working at Agartala. Before instituting the complaint case, the complainant had filed another case in the learned District Forum which was registered as C.C.07/2018 with an allegation that the mobile bill dated 05.01.2018 raised by the opposite parties for an amount Rs.3,156/- was abnormally high in comparison to the previous bills. During the pendency of that case, the complainant received two bills dated 05.02.2018 and 05.03.2018 amounting to Rs.12,021/- and Rs.13,079.43 respectively. Complaint in question, the complainant has challenged the bill dated 05.02.2018 alleging that the bill amount is too excessive in comparison to the previous bills. He also alleged that after getting the bill dated 05.02.2018 he sent a letter to the opposite party no.2 on 23.02.2018 with a request to provide him detailed breakup of the bill and also not to disconnect the mobile connection till disposal of the complaint petition, but the opposite parties without responding to the letter disconnected the mobile connection in spite of a standing order passed by the learned District Forum dated 03.04.2018 in case No. C.C.07/2018. The complainant further stated in the complaint petition that on 08.03.2018 he wrote another letter to the opposite party no.2 requesting him to provide detailed breakup of the mobile bill dated 05.03.2018 amounting to Rs.13,079.43, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant again stated in his complaint petition that his mobile phone was again disconnected on 12.04.2018 in violation of the order of the learned District Forum. Due to repeated disconnection of his mobile, the complainant suffered a lot and thus the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost against the opposite parties due to their deficiency of service.
The opposite parties, BSNL have appeared and by filing written objection denied the allegations and claim of the complainant. The opposite parties have stated that the bill dated 05.02.2018 is correct and that the bill has been raised as per the usage of the billing period shown in item wise call details etc. which is available with the opposite party no.2. It is also stated that as per Jeevan Sathi Scheme mobile No.9436928097 which is being used by the family members of the complainant is connected with the complainant's mobile No.9436125112 and that on 11.01.2018 the post paid plan 325 against the mobile which was being used by the complainant had been converted to plan 525. It is further stated that in plan 525 free voice call is for Rs.450/- and that total usage unit in the mobile of the complainant had been calculated as Rs.22,093.90 and that after making deduction of the benefits as provided by the opposite parties the amount payable by the complainant comes to Rs.13,239.62. According to the opposite parties, the bill amount raised by them of Rs.13,079/- is genuine. They have denied the violation of order of the learned District Forum dated 03.04.2018, as the disconnection in mobile of the complainant had occurred on account of the billing system which show dues to be paid by the complainant against his pending bills.
It is also stated in the written objection that detailed bill as asked for by the complainant had been generated and the same is available to the opposite party no.2. According to the opposite parties, the complainant as a customer has to collect the detailed bill from the Office of the BSNL, Agartala, as there is no mechanism in the BSNL for sending the detailed bill by post to the complainant and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and as such, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from them.
The learned District Forum after hearing the parties passed its judgment dated 19.12.2018 allowing the complaint petition.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the opposite parties, BSNL preferred an appeal before this Commission and thereafter, this Commission after hearing the parties set aside the judgment dated 19.12.2018 and remanded the matter to the learned District Forum for deciding the case afresh after taking into consideration the call letters/records as well as the scheme of the BSNL.
The learned District Forum after receiving the case record from this Commission took up the matter for hearing afresh.
Before the learned District Forum, the opposite parties, BSNL challenged the maintainability of the complaint petition on the ground that the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, BSNL also referred two judgments, one of which is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Reported in AIR 2010 SC 90 and another one rendered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court reported in AIR 2012 GAU 156. The learned District Forum after considering the aforesaid two judgments and the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment with the following reasons:-
"It is found that in this case the Complainant has raised the issue about the inflated bill amounting to Rs.12,021.35 in respect of his mobile for the month of January, 2018. Being dissatisfied with the bill amount the Complainant initially sent two letters dated 23/02/2018 & 08/03/2018 to the O.P. No.2 General Manager, BSNL, Northern Circle, Agartala requesting him to furnish detailed breakup of the bill. But the O.P. did not give any response to the letters. From the W.O. as well as from the Examination-in-chief of the witness of the O.Ps, we find that regarding furnishing of detailed breakup of the bill as sought by the Complainant, the O.Ps have taken the plea that the documents regarding detailed breakup of the bill are available in their office and that there is no mechanism in the BSNL to send it by post. According to the O.Ps the Complainant being the customer, he has to come to the office to collect it. Such a stand taken by the O.Ps according to us is quite unjust and improper. The O.Ps ought to have informed the Complainant about their difficulties in sending the detailed report about the bill to the Complainant. Even the O.P. No.1 could have informed the Complainant to come to their office for collecting the detail bill. The O.P. No.1 also could have taken alternative measures such as sending SMS to the Complainant for collection detailed bill. The Complainant according to us as a consumer has a right under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to know on what basis the impugned bill has been raised. The omission in this respect on the part of the O.Ps according to us amounts to deficiency of service.
From the case record we find that the O.Ps have submitted detailed bill in respect of the mobile of the Complainant for the period of 01/01/2018 to 31/01/2018 on 05/07/2018 when W.O. was filed in the Forum. Copy of the detailed bill has not been furnished to the Complainant side. The Complainant is thus deprived of a valuable right to file objection against it.
We have gone through the impugned bill dated 05/02/2018 (for the month of January) and the threshold report of it furnish by the O.P.W-1. It appears to us that the mobile was having non roaming facility. Total amount due in the bill has been shown as Rs.12,021.35. There is no call charge levied but an amount Rs.22,093.90 has been shown as usage charges. We find that after remand of the case record from the Hon'ble State Commission the O.Ps have not furnished detail scheme of the Plan 525 BSNL justifying the amount raised in the impugned bill. Moreover the O.Ps also did not adduce additional oral / documentary evidence in order to convince the Forum that the bill amount is genuine and it was raised as per usage charges.
The judgments referred to by Learned Counsel for the O.Ps do not appear to us applicable to the case in hand as the referred cases dealt with the matter concerning telephone bills and not with the mobile bills. The issue in the case in hand is regarding mobile bills. Hence, we are not inclined to rely upon the decisions as referred to by Learned Counsel for the O.Ps.
We find that due to the deficiency of service of the O.Ps the Complainant suffered much. His mobile connection was disconnected in number of times. So we consider that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.
7. In the result the complaint filed by the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is partly allowed on contest. We direct both the O.Ps to pay compensation in the tune of Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant and also Rs.4000/- as litigation costs, in total Rs.10,000/-. Both the O.Ps are directed to comply the order within 02 months failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. till the payment is made.
Regarding the impugned bill it is directed that the O.Ps shall arrange for furnishing detailed breakup of the bill to the Complainant within one (01) month after receipt of copy of the judgment. The O.P. BSNL thereafter if deems fit and necessary may proceed further with the bill as per law after observing all formalities."
Mrs. Deb, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum has failed to consider that from the call list submitted by the appellant-opposite parties, it is evident that the bill was genuine for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018. She has also submitted that the complaint petition filed by the respondent-complainant is not maintainable, as there is remedy under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone/mobile bills. She has finally contended that the learned District Forum has failed to consider the aforesaid Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act while deciding the case of the complainant. In support of her contention she has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Shri Vivek Bharadwaj Vs Vodafone Essar East Ltd. in CC No.214 of 2013 wherein the Hon'ble State Commission, West Bengal held that the complaint petition of Shri Vivek Bharadwaj is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.
Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently decided in a case filed by D.P. Sharma, Complainant Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others in Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos (s). 30531-30532 of 2015 held that "Delay condoned. In view of the decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1228 of 2013 decided on 2nd May, 2014, we are of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13th January, 2014 and remand the matter to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for consideration on merits. The special leave petition is disposed of." Upon receipt of the direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble National Commission took up the matter on merits and held that "This Commission has been directed to decide the revision petition on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that the complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable. It means that the objection taken by this Commission on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & anr. (supra) has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, this issue is not being considered again." And finally, the case was decided on merits. Therefore, it can be said that the challenge of the BSNL regarding the question of maintainability of the complaint petition has no force; rather the complaint petition is maintainable.
We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. It appears from the record that after remand of the case by this Commission to the learned District Forum, the opposite parties, BSNL have not furnished detail scheme of the Plan 525 BSNL justifying the amount raised by them in the bill in question. Moreover, the opposite parties, BSNL also did not adduce any additional oral and/or documentary evidence to show that the bill amount is genuine and it was raised as per usage charges. Thus according to us, there was no other option before the learned District Forum except to pass the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others Vs D.P. Sharma, Complainant passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2254 of 2012 decided on 3rd July, 2019, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that complaint petition filed by a consumer regarding the BSNL Broadband connection which remained inoperative for 27 days as alleged by the complainant, is maintainable. Thus, it can be said that the present complaint petition is also maintainable.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no wrong in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Forum and as such, no interference is called for.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.
MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura