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.28.2019 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.07 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties, the appellants herein, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.9,000/-. Both the opposite parties are 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.
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 being a consumer got mobile connection having Post Paid Sim Card bearing No.9436125112 in the year 2005-06 from the BSNL and since then he has been using and enjoying facilities as a subscriber from the BSNL. In his complaint, it is alleged that he got a bill dated 05.01.2018 for the period from 1st December, 2017 to 31st December, 2017 for an amount of Rs.3,156.40/-, which according to him, was abnormal in comparison to the previous bills issued to him by the opposite parties, BSNL. He thus met the Office of the opposite party no.2, General Manager, BSNL, North Eastern Circle, Agartala who assured him that the allegation made by him would be looked into. As per assurance given by the opposite party no.2, the complainant paid the entire bill amount of Rs.3,156.40/- on 26.01.2018, but in spite of such payment, the mobile connection was disconnected/ withdrawn. It was told by the Office of the opposite party no.2 that the disconnection/withdrawal was done by mistake, but the connection was, however, not restored. The complainant being the General Manager of TIDC used the mobile phone for his official purpose in addition to his personal purpose. So, on account of disconnection of his mobile phone, he suffered a lot and as such, claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation from the opposite parties.
The Opposite parties appeared before the learned District Forum and filed their written objection denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant paid the bill amount on 26.01.2018 and the disconnection was made by the Central Billing System automatically on 26.01.2018 for excess of credit limit. Moreover, the complainant did not pay the bill amount within due date of payment. According to the opposite parties, before disconnection, SMS was sent by system to the complainant. The appellant-opposite parties also denied the contention of the complainant that the disconnection of the mobile phone was made by mistake. The opposite parties have thus asserted that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and relief from the opposite parties as sought for.
After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed its judgment on 09.10.2018 allowing the complaint petition.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the opposite parties, BSNL preferred an appeal before this Commission. After hearing the parties, this Commission set aside the judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned District Forum and remanded the matter to the learned District Forum for deciding the case afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the call list/records as well as the scheme of the BSNL.
Upon receipt of the case record from this Commission, the learned District Forum issued notices to the complainant as well as the opposite parties for appearing before the learned District Forum. Both the parties appeared before the learned District Forum through their Ld. Counsel. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties adduced any additional evidence. Both of them have relied upon the evidence which were all ready on record.
The learned District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:-
Whether the disconnection made by the BSNL to the mobile phone of the Complainant was improper?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and relief for any deficiency of service committed by the O.P. BSNL towards the Complainant?
Both the complainant as well as the opposite parties submitted their respective documents before the learned District Forum.
The learned District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents on record passed the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal.
Mrs. Deb, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned District Forum erroneously decided the said complaint and in its findings relied upon the statement made on oath for subsequent period which was never challenged before the learned District Forum. She has also submitted that the bill period is related to bill dated 05.01.2018 amounting to Rs.3,156.40 and the said bill was paid on 26.01.2018 and disconnection was made on 26.01.2018 automatically by the Central Billing System due to high usage from 01.01.2018 to 26.01.2018 in excess of credit limit. She has further submitted that the learned District Forum has wrongly held that the complainant paid the entire bill amount on 26.01.2018 having got prior assurance through e-mail/SMS from the opposite parties-BSNL that the matter would be resolved at the earliest though there was no such contention in the complaint petition. She again submitted that complainant case was for bill period from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 amounting to Rs.3,156.40. She has finally submitted that the learned District Forum did not consider the judgment referred by the appellant-opposite parties wherein it is specifically stated that as per Section 7 (B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the disputes relating to telephone/mobile bills, the remedy is under the Telegraph Act, not under the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that there was no wrong in the impugned judgment and more so, the judgment referred by the appellant-opposite parties subsequently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and did not approve the same. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.P. Sharma Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others (Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos (s). 30531-30532 of 2015) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 Signature Not Verified 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 in Revision Petition No.2254 of 2012 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others Vs D.P. Sharma) 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 has no force; rather the complaint petition is maintainable.
We have gone through the evidence on oath as well as the records available, from which it appears that the learned District Forum rightly held that the mobile bill for the period from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 in connection with the mobile phone No.9436125112 for an amount of Rs.3,156.40/- was served to the complainant and the same was paid on 26.01.2018 having got prior assurance through e-mail from the Office of the opposite party no.2, BSNL that the matter would be resolved at the earliest. It is also evident from the record that subsequently the mobile connection was again disconnected and that as per order dated 03.04.2018 of the learned District Forum, the mobile connection was again restored. It was the case of the opposite parties that the disconnection was made by Centralized Billing System automatically on 26.01.2018 as the bill amount was not paid on due date of payment and also due to high usage charge levied from 01.01.2018 to 26.01.2018, which was in excess of credit limit of Rs.2,536/-. The opposite parties have, however, failed to produce evidence to show that prior intimation had been made to the complainant before discontinuing the services being enjoyed by the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had already paid full bill amount of Rs.3,156.40/- to the opposite parties on 26.01.2018.
It is also evident that for restoration of mobile connection, the complainant had to approach the learned District Forum on two different occasions. The learned District Forum also observed, inter alia, that "It has come to light that there is abundant materials on record to show that the O.P. BSNL were negligent and failed to render proper services to the Complainant. The Complainant being a consumer suffered much because of the deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. The Complainant is a responsible Officer of TIDC and that due to the deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps he had suffered a lot on account of the disconnection of his mobile even after payment of due amount to the O.Ps. We also find that the complainant's mobile connection was disconnected in number of times without prior intimation to the Complainant.
It is relevant to mention here that 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 hold that the disconnection the O.Ps. BSNL to the mobile of the complainant was improper which amounted to deficiency of service. Consequently, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps."
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong and thus, 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