CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,HOOGHLY
CC Case no. 91 of 2009
Sri Tarun Basu
Paschimayan,
Haridradanga Main Road,
P.O.Chandernagore,
Dist.Hooghly … Complainant
-vs-
Sr.AO (TR & CC)
BSNL/Calcutta Telephone
Barabazar, G.T.Road,
P.O.Chandernagore,
Dist.Hooghly … Opp.Party
Present : D.K.Basu …. President
S.Basu …. Member
Date of delivery of judgement : 24.12.2009
The facts of the complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows :
The complainant Tarun Basu has filed the case against the Senior Accounts officer (TR and CC) BSNL/Calcutta Telephones Barabazar, G.T.Road, Chandernagore, Hooghly alleging that the complainant holds a land line telephone no. 26831211 and a Manik jore mobile connection no.9432259839 and also a Broad band connection under plan no. 250 since July 2007. Due to excessive bill during August to November 2007 the complainant desired to change broadband plan from 250 to the plan 900 and his base telephone from general to special plan with immediate effect and a letter to that regard addressed to AOTR , BSNL, Calcutta Telephones given on 29.11.2007. The OP did not change that plan as per his request till the end of January, 2008 and as usual inflated bill for December 2007 was submitted in January 08 on the basis of plan 250. He also conveyed strong objection for the same over the counter of Customer Care centre on 24.1.08 and the Op change the plan with effect from January, 2008. He also sent a letter on 28.1.2008 to the OP returning the bill of December, 2007 for rectification and the authority without rectifying the same demanded the bill amount. In the instant case BSNL authority may take one month time for changing the plan as demanded but in the case of the complainant that had not been made. When the correspondences were going on the OP disconnected the outgoing call facilities from 18.2.2008 and later on incoming facilities from 3.3.08. The telephone service is an essential service and despite strong protest on the activities of OP , the Op inform the complainant that his objection had been sent to the competent authority for consideration. In the meantime, the Op disconnected the petitioner’s Manikjore mobile connection despite uptodate payment of Manikjore bill in time. Thus, the petitioner has been harassed mentally and physically for the activities of the OP. By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction for stopping the sending bills from 28.2.2008 till the date for which no telephone services are provided, write off unduly created overdue fake bill amount , give retrospective effect of Broadband connection under plan 900 from the 1st December, 2007 and rectification of the Bill of December, 2007, compensation of Rs.5.0 lakhs for harassment and mental agony and other reliefs.
The OP has contested this case by filing written version whereon he has denied all the material averment of the complainant contending inter alia that as the dispute in regard to exorbitant and /or excessive billing ofment of telephone bill , this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute under Section 7B , Indian Telegraph Act (vide AIR 1996, Supreme court, paged 2476). It has admitted in the written version the receipt of application for change of Broadband plan from Home-250 to Home UL -900 received on 29.11.2007 and was forwarded to Commercial officer, Serampur on 22.12.2007 for giving effect on and from 1.1.08 as usual as per guideline, Broadband customer will apply to respective Area Commercial officer for plan change from 25th of the current month to 5th of the next month and in the instant case the complainant has been enjoying UL 900 plan with effect from 1.1.2008 and not from 3.1.2008 . The bill period December 2007 dated 7.1.2008 does not suffer any irregularity or abnormality.No negligence or material irregularity has been caused on th part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.
1) Whether this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain to decide the disputes raised in the complaint.
2) Whether the Op has committed any deficiency in service ?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
All these points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.
The learned lawyer of the OP has argued that he has vividly described the allegations made against him in the complaint in his written versionwhereon he has answered all the disputes raised by the complainant. The plan change become effective from the lst day of every month.
It is admitted fact that the complainant issued a letter for changing the plan 250 to plan no.900 on 29.11.2007 as the complainant applied for the same change on 29.11.2007 it could not be effected from 1.12.2007 and that change of plan was effected on and from 1.1.08. According to the Rule the change of plan should be communited to the authoirity within 25th of each month and the change of plan will be effected from lst dayof the next month. As the complailnant applied for the same on 29.11.2007 , the plan would not be changed on 1.12.2007 and giving effect the change on 1.1.08 there cause no negligence or deficiency in service. He has further aruged that though disconnection of the telephone was made but the same telephone was not surrendered and the authority will provide bill until the same is surrendered by the consumer.Thus, by sending the bill during disconnection period, the Op has not committed any irregularity. He has further argued that as the dispute is for bill amount , this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the matter and pursuant to the Section 7B of Indian telegraph Act the case should be referred to the proper authority.
Considering the argument of the complainant who has argued depicting the complaint case vividly , and also bearing in mind the argument of the learned lawyer of the OP as cited above, we are of opinion, that the complaint is made for settling the dispute in respect of the Bill amount of December, 2007 and alike . Thus, in our considered view purusuant to Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme court in AIR l996 page 2476 it is provided as “it is settled law that reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest . It is seen that u/s 7B , the award is conclusive when the citizen complaints that he was not correctly put to bill of the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment . The statutory remedy open to him is one provided u/s 7B of the Act.”
In view of the above Ruling we are of opinion, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute arose in the complaint. The proper Forum according to Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act is the Arbitration as per Act. The complainant is therefore directed to redress his grievance from the Arbitrator as specified in the Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act.
The case is accordingly disposed of without awarding any relief to the complainant.
Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period.
Dictated and corrected by me
President Member President
Tags: BSNL