State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bsnl & Anr. vs Subhash Chand on 11 August, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. FIRST APPEAL NO.373/2006. DATE OF DECISION: 11.8.2008. 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Dharamshala, Telecom Ltd. Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. through its General Manager. 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Palampur, through its Sub Divisional Officer (Telecom), Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Palampur, through its Junior Officer, Telecom, Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Appellants/Opposite parties. Versus Subhash Chand son of Madho Ram R/O Village Gadiara, P.O. Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Respondent/Complainant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel ( Retd.), President Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellants: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India.
For the Respondent: Mr. Paras Dogar, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral)
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and with their assistance have also examined the record of the complaint file.
2. Facts are by and large admitted. Complaint was filed on the averments that respondent is the subscriber of Telephone No.275460 installed by the appellants at his residence. Bi-monthly bill for June and July, 2004, was received by him in the sum of Rs.12966/-. According to him, his average bill did not exceed Rs.750/-. When represented before the appellants, matter was not looked into, muchless got investigated by the appellants. This resulted into filing of the complaint.
3. Stand of the appellants while contesting the complaint was that the respondent was having STD facility with dynamic locking.
Further according to them, whatever number of calls were made, those have been rightly charged, therefore, appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Further Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act was pressed into service, as according to them, this matter needs to be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator.
4. District Forum below after taking note of all the facts placed before it by the parties has ordered the appellants to modify Bill No.43403464, dated 7.8.2004 for June to July, 2004. While doing so, it has been ordered that the charges will be as per highest bill issued during six bi-monthly period (one year) immediately preceding the disputed period plus 10% over the highest bill. Appellants have been directed to issue the modified bill to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order i.e. 20.9.2006 passed in Complaint No.84/2004 and the respondent has been directed to deposit the amount of modified bill. Further direction has also been issued to the appellants to restore the telephone connection forthwith after payment of the revised bill by the complainant.
No costs have been levied.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that District Forum could not have ordered the modification of the bill because the amount mentioned in the bill was in respect of the calls actually made by the complainant. Admittedly there was sudden spurt in the bill of the complainant. It ought to have been kept under surveillance, and if necessary person should have been deputed to ascertain as to whether there was some special occasion/function at the premises where the phone was installed more especially when the telephone was having STD facility. There is nothing on record to suggest that as to whether telephone was kept under surveillance and/or any person was deputed to verify the factual position that there being any special occasion at the premises where the telephone in question was installed. That being the position, we find no substance in this plea and is hereby rejected.
6. So far reference to Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act for dismissing the complaint and allowing this appeal is concerned, suffice it to say in this behalf that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the proceedings under the Act, are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, this plea also merits rejection.
7. We have not been able to understand as to what were the compelling circumstances, that the appellants chose to file this appeal.
We leave this matter here only without saying anything further in this behalf.
8. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-. The amount of cost will be adjusted by the appellants in future bills of the respondent, however, he will be duly given intimation in writing in that behalf against receipt while adjusting the amount of cost.
Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect certified copy of this order free of cost from the Reader of this Court as per Rules.
Shimla, August 11,2008.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel) ( (Retd.) President /BS/ ( Saroj Sharma ) Member.