DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
D. F. CASE NO.- 225(w)/2006
PETITIONER : =Vs.= O.Ps.
Smt. Sima Banerjee 1) Ch. General Manager
W/o Late Tapan Banerjee BSNL, Calcutta Telephones
Naba Pally, Kora, Telephone Bhavan, Kol.-1
P.S. Barasat, Kol.-130 2) Area Manager, Barrackpore
Dist. North 24 Pgs. Calcutta Telephones, I, Pipe Road,
Chiriamore, Barrackpore, Kol.-120
3) A.O.T.R. Barrackpore,
Calcutta Telephones, 1, Pipe Road,
Chiriamore, Barrackpore, Kol.-120
P R E S E N T :- Shri B. Niyogi ———- President
:- Shri S. Chatterjee —– Member
:- Smt. M. Roy ———– Member
J U D G E M E N T
Date :- 20/02/2009.
Instant case bases upon a complaint under Section 12, C. P. Act brought by the complainant –Smt. Sima Banerjee on 28.11.06 against the O.Ps. who are different officials of BSNL alleging deficiency in service.
Complainant’s case as it appears from the said P.O.C, in brief, is that she was provided a telephone connection having No. 2542-9808 on 17.12.03. Since the installation of the telephone connection there has been irregular service of telephone bills, disgraceful repairing service, abnormal delay in restoration of line and virtually granting of no rebate respecting long spells of the telephone’s remaining out of order. Original bills dated 10.04.04, 10.05.04, 10.07.04, 07.08.04, 07.09.04, 07.11.04, 07.12.04, 07.01.05, 07.05.05, 07.06.05, 07.08.05, 03.09.05 and 07.09.05 were not served upon her and for that she had to pay additional charges by way of late fees and disconnection charges. The concerned telephone remained dead from 17.03.05 to 11.04.05 and from 16.06.05 to 29.08.05 but on repeated requests rebate only Rs.200/- was granted in the bill dated 02.09.05. Despite her surrendering of the telephone, bills have been raised laying demand for rental and call charges.
In the backdrop of such circumstances the complaint has been brought seeking refund of fine and reconnection charges amounting to Rs. 240/- rebate of an amount of Rs. 650/-, refund of security deposit of Rs. 870/- and compensation for mental agony and for financial loss, cost of litigation etc.
The proceeding has been contested on behalf of the O.Ps. on whose behalf a written version was presented on 23.02.07 contending interalia that the proceeding is untenable as the complainant can no longer be regarded a consumer after effecting of the permanent disconnection of her telephone line on 07.10.05. There was no arbitrary act on the part of the O.Ps. respecting the sanction for refund of the security deposit which was duly communicated to the complainant under letter marked as annexure ‘A’. For satisfaction of the complainant detailed fortnight meter readings for the period from
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
D.F.C.-225(w)/2006
- :: 2 :: -
31.01.05 to 03.09.05 and the faulty telephone history sheet for the period from 01.03.05 to 31.08.05 were annexed as annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’ respectively to the written version.
Upon the pleadings of the sides following points come up for determination:-
Points:-
1) Is the proceeding maintainable?
2) was there deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
3) Should the reliefs sought for by the complainant be granted?
Decision with Reasons
The averments made in the P.O.C have been supported by affidavit sworn by the complainant herself. That apart, the complainant in support of her case annexed to the P.O.C copies of a good number of documents which were marked by the complainant giving serial numbers 1 to 60. Such documents include copies of different correspondences made in between the parties, and of bills. The averments made in the written version have also been verified by a Divisional Engineer of BSNL. Copies of three documents including fortnightly meter reading chart for the period from 31.01.05 to 15.09.05, were also annexed to the written version as annexures A, B & C. No other evidence was adduced in the case.
Let us now enter into the determination on the different points formulated above:-
Point No.1
The maintainability of the proceeding was assailed contending that since admittedly the permanent disconnection of the telephone line of the complainant was made long before the institution of this case, the complainant could not be treated as a consumer at the time of bringing of the complaint. Since here the complainant virtually alleged improper realization of charges and laying of improper demand for charges from the end of the O.Ps. respecting the period / periods while she was a subscriber of the telephone connection, she can very well be regarded to have been a consumer. On the materials on record we do not find anything else which may render the proceeding untenable.
This point No.1 is thus decided in the affirmative.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
These two points are taken up together for consideration for convenience of discussion.
The complainant in para 6 of her P.O.C stated that the bills were not being served upon her and for this she had to pay additional charges by way of late fees and disconnection charges. Though the complainant mentioned therein identities of 13 bills which were claimed to have not been served, the complainant is silent in her P.O.C as to the identity of the bills under which additional charges were, in fact, realized by the O.Ps. In the prayer portion of the P.O.C the complainant virtually prayed for refund of an mount of Rs. 40/- as late fine paid and of Rs. 200/- as reconnection charges paid.
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 3/-
D.F.C.-225(w)/2006
- :: 3 :: -
In the purported “supplementary submission” filed by the complainant in this case on 23.09.08 the complainant prayed for refund of the said amount of Rs. 240/- alleging at item No.-(iv) therein that the O.Ps. illegally kept her telephone line disconnected twice from 17.03.05 to 11.04.05 and from 16.06.05 to 19.08.05.
We take into consideration such “supplementary submission” since it appears from the order dated 20.11.08 that on behalf of the O.Ps. it was represented that they do not require to present any additional written version in view of presentation of the said supplementary submission on behalf of the complainant. That apart, in this case the complainant has not virtually been represented by any member of the legal profession but by herself and by one Sri Bijay Chakraborty.
Here, the telephone line has already been disconnected permanently. From complainant’s Annexure-An.-32 it appears that the O.P. sanctioned only an amount of Rs.870/- towards refund of security deposit by adjusting from the security deposit amount of Rs.3,000/- an amount of Rs.2130.19 as outstanding dues. An.-33 shows the break up of the said outstanding dues claimed by the O.P. and it goes as under :-
Bill Date. 03/09/2005 Rs.341.00
07/09/2005 Rs.386.00
07/10/2005 Rs.969.00
Rs.1696.00
Bill for broken period
ending at the time of
permanent disconnection Rs.434.19
TOTAL Rs.2130.19
Consideration of the complaint and of the purported “supplementary submission” filed on 23/09/2008 together persuades us to view that in this case complainant questions the propriety of adjustment of the said amount of Rs.2130/- from the security deposit and claims further Rs.240/- being refund of reconnection charges and fines stated to have been realized by the O.P. illegally and an amount of Rs.676.42 by way of rebate in rental for the telephone line’s remaining dead, beside of course, compensation for mental agony and for financial loss.
Let us first take up the question of O.P.’s claim for adjustment respecting the bills dated 03/09/2005 for Rs.341/-, dated 07/09/2005 for Rs.386/- and dated 07/10/2005 for Rs.969/-.
In the supplementary submission (at point-iii) it has virtually been stated that the bills dated 03/09/2005, 07/09/2005 were raised illegally in respect of disorder period. Though there is provision of granting of rebate in respect of the period or periods of a telephone line’s remaining dead there appears to be no provision prohibiting raising of bill in respect of such periods of the line’s remaining not in order. So, the complainant’s claim of O.P.’s improper adjustment of the dues respecting the said two bills dated 03/09/2005 and 07/09/2005 from the security deposit on ground line’s remaining not in order cannot be accepted. That apart, here we note from annexure-23 and 24 that in the
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 4/-
D.F.C.-225(w)/2006
- :: 4 :: -
bill dated 07/09/2005 which was in fact a revised bill rebate in rental was granted for an amount of Rs.200/-.
As to the bill dated 07/10/2005 for an amount of Rs.969/- respecting which adjustment was made by the O.P. from the security deposit, it has virtually been stated by the complainant in her “supplementary submission” that the number of calls shown in the bill was far above the average and so the meter readings shown therein were false. No other reason appears to have been put forward by the complainant assailing the bill. The “Opening M.R. Data” and the “Closing M.R. Data” shown in the bill appear to be in consonance with the Fortnight Meter Reading Chart furnished by the O.P. annexing to its W.V. as An.-B. It has not been the claim of the complainant that the said bill was actually paid by her. So, adjustment of the said bill amount of Rs.969/- from the security deposit cannot be viewed to have been improper.
Let us now take up O.P.’s claim for adjustment of the bill for an amount of Rs.434.19 respecting the broken period ending at the time of disconnection. As to this it has been stated in the “supplementary submission” that as because the telephone line was surrendered on 05/10/2005 bill could not be raised upto the date 06/10/2005. An.-26 goes to show that the complainant’s application for surrender of the telephone was deposited in O.P.’s office on 05/10/2005. In the situation it cannot readily be regarded that actual disconnection was effected on 05/10/2005. An.-33 goes to indicate that the bill for the broken period was raised demanding call charges for (2828-2523) i.e. for 305 calls. An.-B to the W.V. – fortnightly meter reading chart shows that though number of calls in a fortnight were not much earlier yet in the fortnight immediately before the aforesaid period 01/10/2005 to 06/10/2005 the number of calls was 456 (in the fortnight 15/09/2005 to 30/09/2005). Such being the situation, we think demand for 305 calls during the period of 6 days from 01/10/2005 to 06/10/2005 cannot readily be regarded to be unreasonable or improper.
Thus the O.P.’s claim for adjustment of an amount of Rs. 2130/- respecting the osd concerning the bills dated 03/09/2005, 07/09/2005, 07/10/2005 and the bill for the broken period 01/10/2005 to 06/10/2005 could have been allowed, provided no rebate in rental and no refund in reconnection charges and late fee could be granted to the complainant.
Consideration of the P.O.C and of the said “supplementary submission” persuades us to treat that the late fee of Rs. 40/- and reconnection charges of Rs. 200/- were sought to be refunded in view of illegal disconnection of the telephone connection during the two spells of time from 17.03.05 to 11.04.05 and from 16.05.05 to 19.08.05.
Prior to 17.03.05 bills for the bill periods February, 05 and January,05 were raised. Complainant’s annexures -52 & 51 go to show that the due date respecting the bill period February, 05 was 28.03.05 and that in respect of the bill for the bill period January, 05 was 28.02.05. So, O.Ps. could have effected disconnection on 14.03.05 as alleged by the complainant for non payment of the bill for the bill period January, 05 or any earlier bill. Said annexure 51(bill for bill period January, 05) indicates that even though the said bill was paid on 26.02.05 but the bill dated 07.01.05 for an amount of Rs.535/- remained unpaid. Said bill dated 07.01.05 has been annexed to the P.O.C. as annexure-50. Such bill does not bear any endorsement as to the making of payment. No
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 5/-
D.F.C.-225(w)/2006
- :: 5 :: -
other document has been filed by the complainant to show that the said bill dated 07.01.05 of which due date was 31.01.05 was actually paid before 14.03.05. It, therefore, cannot be regarded that the disconnection alleged by the complainant to have been effected on 17.03.05 was done despite no dues remaining unpaid.
Now coming to the disconnection stated to have been effected on 16.06.05 we notice that even though the complainant in her P.O.C. and in her “supplementary submission” claimed that disconnection was effected illegally by O.P. alleging default, we find from the complainant’s letter dated 04/10/2005 addressed to the P.R.O., BSNL (made as An.-22 to P.O.C.) that at Sl. No.-3 of such letter it was asserted by the complainant that since 16/06/2005 the telephone line remained out of order. In fact from the revised bill dated 03/09/2005 (copy annexed to the P.O.C. as An.-24) it appears that a rebate in rental for an amount of Rs.200/- was granted to the complainant for the spell of disorder period beginning from 16/06/2005. That apart, the complainant does not appear to have furnished any receipt of payment to show that she was made to pay reconnection charges and late fine for the stated disconnection.
So, the complainant cannot said to be entitled to get refund of an amount of Rs.240/- by way of refund of reconnection charges and late fees stated to have been paid by her in view of alleged disconnection of telephone line.
As to the complainant’s claim for certain amount by way of rebate in rental we notice that the complainant in para-4 (iii) of her P.O.C. and in the concluding para of her “supplementary submission” laid such claim for rebate of an amount of Rs.676.42 for 62 days of the telephone line’s remaining out of order. The exact span or spans of time of the telephone’s remaining not in order do not appear to have been stated either in the P.O.C. or in the “supplementary submission”. We have already observed that An.-22 and An.-24 go to show that on prayer of the complainant rebate of an amount of Rs.200/- was once granted to the complainant. In the absence of mentioning of any span or spans of time for which the rebate has been claimed to be allowed we do not think it proper to direct the O.Ps. to take into account the said claim of rebate for ascertaining the amount of actual refund to be made from the security deposit.
From a consideration of materials on record and circumstances, we are thus of the view that there was no impropriety on the part of the O.P. in adjusting an aggregate amount of Rs.2130/- against the refund of security deposit of the complainant and thus sanctioning only of an amount of Rs.870/- from the security deposit of Rs.3000/- as has been purported to have been made by the O.P. under the sanction order No.-TR/BKP/Refund/Memo/213 dated 02/11/2005 (made as An.-32 to P.O.C.) which also purports to have been communicated to the complainant.
It, therefore, cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
In the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by her in this proceeding.
Points-2 and 3 are thus decided.
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 6/-
D.F.C.-225(w)/2006
- :: 6 :: -
The complaint, therefore, fails.
Accordingly, it is
Ordered
That the complaint dated 28/11/2006 brought by the complainant stands rejected on contest. In the circumstances we, however, make no order as to costs.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
Sd/-
(B. Niyogi)
President
We concur
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. Roy) (S. Chatterjee)
Member Member