Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he availed of the Scheme of individual basic telephone(landline) service named “Bolo Kolkata” of OPs and applied for the same and on receipt of the application OP1 issued Bill No.BBZNCG0366 dated 08-10-2003 which was duly paid on the same day under proper receipt at the office of OP1 and the Registration Card with one free IT card was issued by OP1 in respect of providing to complainant a NON-OYT (General) individual status residential landline telephone connection and since the day of installation dated 09-08-2012 the land line telephone connection bearing the no.2219 9017 was not working to the satisfaction of the Senior Citizen, complainant.  So, in the month of August, 2012 complainant above named decided to surrender the land line telephone above noted accordingly he intimated OP1 through the duly filled in Surrender Form supplied by OP1 that he likes to surrender the land line telephone and said surrender notice was duly received by the offices of OPs1 and 2 respectively on 07-08-2012 under seal and signature.

          That on 13-08-2012 the authority of BSNL, Calcutta Telephone had duly collected the instrument supplied to complainant on hire basis acknowledging receipt of the same on the reverse side of form No.B.T.-92(L) and as per terms and condition of landline telephone-in-question complainant deposited Rs.3,500/- only in 20 instalments of Rs.150/- each along with Rs.500/- as initial deposit the same will be proved from Annexure “B”.  Complainant is entitled to get back the security deposit of Rs.3,500/- only on surrender of the telephone line and the instruments.  But OP even after allowing persuasion did not bother to arrange the refund of the amount of security deposit.  So, on 21-05-2013 he addressed a reminder to OP1 with a request to arrange the refund of due security deposit within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said communication and send to its office for delivery by hand but OP1 refused to accept the said letter without any cogent reason.  So, in observance of the said act of OP1 complainant’s patience reached to its brim, and, as such, brought the fact to the knowledge of the OP3 by the letter dated 23-03-2013 annexing thereto the letter dated 21-05-2013 addressed to OP1 with the request to advise dept. concerned of his establishment to arrange refund of the dues within the stipulated time but practically no step was taken by the OPs and complainant as a Senior Citizen was harassed by the OP and in the above circumstances getting no redressal complainant filed this complaint ultimately on 06-09-2013 for redressal. 

On the other hand, OP by filing written statement has submitted officially a maintainability petition which were rejected on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- but that Rs.2,000/- has not yet been paid by the OP to the complainant.  Thereafter, filed written version on 06-02-2014 and it is submitted that complainant never complied with the instruction and never any such prayer reviewed by AOTR/SB-II, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones and in absence of the document the AOTR is not in a position to release the security deposit which is prayed for by the complainant and as such there was gross negligent on the part of the complainant to comply all the instruction as stated above which cannot be shifted upon the OPs and it is pertinent to mention that AOTR/SB-II is duty bound as per the Telephone Act and Rules on the ground there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs Calcutta Telephone.  Further it is submitted that out of claim amount of Rs.3,500/- OP already adjusted Rs.500/- on the first bill dated 10-11-2013 so in that situation complainant’s claim is excessive.  It is further submitted that complainant is no doubt entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards security deposit which is lingering much till the bill has not submitted such prayer to the Accounts Officer, AOTR, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones and for which complainant has not acted bona fide and more over complainant has failed to prove by any cogent document that denies of the prayer was made by the AOTR, BSNL and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On proper assessment of the complainant and written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the OP’s Ld. Lawyer and further considering the evidence in chief by the OP filed on 15-05-20-14 it is found that OP has admitted that complainant has entitled to refund Rs.3,000/- as security deposit amount and in para 10 of the evidence of the OP it is stated that Account Officer duly released the said amount by two cheques vide No.288529 dated 07-10-2013 for Rs.2,636/- and the cheque no.28809 dated 07-11-2013 for Rs.365/- total Rs.3,001/- which the complainant refused to accept and on the contrary claim a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost is completely baseless and without any foundation. 

          At the time of hearing the argument Ld. Lawyer has submitted that OP’s two cheques had already been issued but peculiar factor is that the issuance of the two cheques bearing No.288529 and 28809 was first ventilated in the evidence in chief by the OP on 15-05-2014 and there is no such document to show that those cheques were sent by the OP to the complainant with registered post with A/D at any point of time but what we have gathered that these cheques are in the custody of the Ld. Lawyer of the OP and if same were refused by the complainant that ought to have been filed by the OP before this Forum by filing a application along with maintainability petition filed by the OP on 13-11-2013.  So, considering that fact it is clear that this mal practice was adopted by the Account Officer for the purpose of frustrating the complainant’s allegation but truth is that complaint was filed by the complainant on 06-09-2013.  OP appeared on 08-10-2013 thereafter took time for filing written version and ultimately the                               that maintainability petition was rejected on 24-12-2013 on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- that Rs.2,000/- has not been paid by the OP when OP thereafter took several times and ultimately submitted evidence in chief on 15-05-2014 and in that evidence in chief OP has disclosed that he issued two cheques on 07-10-2013 and 07-11-2013 for total of Rs.3,001/- but peculiarity is that without submitting any such complaint before Accounts Officer (TR) automatically cheques were issued by the Account Officer after appearance of the OP and it was kept in the office and that matter was disclosed by the OP only on 15-04-2014.  Whole matter has created much doubt about the social responsibility, morality of the OP authority.  Practically, the OP not even in the maintainability petition reported that matter though that petition was filed by the OP on 19-11-2013 that means whole matter of issuing cheque by the OP is for the purpose of proving their genuinity but truth is that dishonest practice has been practiced by the OP and that was placed by the Ld. Lawyer before the Forum to substantiate that OP is very honest but their whole story is proved false from the very beginning and even appearance of OP before this Forum and after receipt of the notice on 08-10-2013 they had no intention to pay the said amount of Rs.3,000/- but it is their practice to spend huge money for litigation and to defeat the claim of the complainant for which maintainability petition was filed that means at that time the cheque was not prepared, if it was prepared actually there honest approach on the part of the BSNL would be ventilated through the present lawyer of the BSNL but that had not been done.  Truth is that social responsibility and morality of the BSNL is not factor but to harass the customers and they have their no desire to give service to the customer at all and the situation of the BSNL Administration is no doubt beyond control and for which the present complainant for getting the service of the BSNL applied for BSNL landline but did not get service even after payment of Rs.3,500/- so, this complainant a Senior Citizen even after praying for new connection and that connection was made on 09-08-2012 but service was so worst that in that August, 2012 he surrendered it on 13-08-2012 and the very fact simply proves poor service is being rendered by OP in all respect and this is the report of the Ministry of Communication also that BSNL service to the customer is very poor, maintenance is very poor and as a big industry of communication in India is not performing their corporate social responsibility as yet which is proved in the particular case and in this case defence has taken by the OP is no doubt unfounded and it has no basis and filing of cheques before this Forum is at attempt of unfair trade practice and whole case record is reviewed and it is found that any point of time that cheques were not submitted before this Forum for payment to the complainant.  No doubt this is the procedure as adopted as per instruction of some scientific brain to defeat the claim of the complainant but we are convinced that complainant submitted everything to the authority up to higher authority though reported but no result was received then higher authority are also so irresponsible that they had no eager to send any reply to the complainant to submit the same to the Account Officer then it is clear that public grievance is not entertained by the BSNL higher authority but they are also holding chair sitting in the cool room to draw their salary and to return home daily.  Is there anyone in the administration to control such situation, is there anyone who has taken such step daily to check up the defective line and etc.  None is here and there in the BSNL Administration they are in the cool room they have no time to hear the grievances of the customers(consumers) but they are only for holding flags raising their demands for revision of salary but they are not appointed for development of BSNL Industry in India and for which those complainant as old aged person was also not entertained in this regard.  But Private Companies like TATA, Birla are taking responsibility of the consumer and private telecommunication companies are challenged and practically the vital industry of Government of India that is Indian Rail and BSNL are found acting in a bad manner and CAG has commented about the performance of the BSNL and Railway about their maintenance and service as worse for which both the companies are passing financial crisis if the social responsibility of those industries of India are not established, the development of India in all respect in support of transport and communication shall be major drawbacks in respect of the development of India and people at large shall have to suffer much and whole development must be in stake.  Most interesting factor is that the corporate sector is taking a vital role to play his interim profit investment flows or that in rural areas and urban areas for development process to make the communication on their door but practically undertaking companies of Government are very much reluctant because they are sure that there is no scope to close their company and they shall get salary month by month even after rendering no service the customers and without attending their grievances daily.  But history says that CSR is found the developed countries so the BSNL or the Indian Railway Authority shall have to study and understand the business policies and also to learn social responsibility of the Companies what is the impact of the social responsible activities in the social economic development of rural and urban public but anyhow till date the BSNL and India Railway have not changed their attitude and at the same time they are very much reluctant to decide the grievances of the consumers and even they are not in a mood to send any reply against any grievance and in this case up to higher authority senior citizen wrote letters and made his grievances but truth is that no reply was received from the higher authority also of BSNL.  Then question is whether at all there is any BSNL office wherefrom a person can get any information.  Moreover in the present case it is proved that harassment made by the OP not only to the complainant they had their very scope on the date of their appears to handover Rs.3,001/- but that has not been done because BSNL authority had no desire to pay that amount to the complainant or like such person on the ground there is one ruling of the Supreme Court that any case against BSNL cannot be decided before the Forum and that is the own defence in all the cases for lingering the case and to deprive the bona fide claimant and we are in reply to raise question  for what reason the BSNL has been spending huge money against litigation without paying the amount forthwith but this is the approach of the BSNL and Indian Railway which is no doubt vital loss to the said industry if the bona fide claim of the consumer is not paid by the BSNL and Indian Rail without wasting time without spending more litigation cost if the attitude of BSNL and Indian Rail is controlled. The loss of the said industry cannot be controlled. So, we are expressing that BSNL and Indian Rail must be more socially responsible companies to the customers otherwise in future both the companies shall be automatically transferred to the hand of the private company when the employees of the Indian Railway and BSNL have to realize their fate anyhow they have failed to realize the present condition when private companies have entered and they are capturing market and if ultimately the private companies would be able to capture the customers in the communication if BSNL do not discharge their social responsibility in that case BSNL shall be a ricket  industry and that day is not so far and this particular case is sufficient for expressing such agony of this Forum.

          After thorough study and after considering the entire materials we are confirmed that laches, negligence and deficiency are on the part of the OPs.  OPs have their scope to handover the cheques forthwith on receipt of the same but that was not done only to harass the customer which is no doubt an unfair trade practice also and for which we are allowing the complainant as the laches, negligence and deficiency are well proved and adopting unfair trade practice and valid claim of the complainant is denied upto the date of hearing argument by the Ld. Lawyer of the OP.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) against the OPs.

          OPs are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) for harassing Senior Citizen in such a manner and for adopting unfair trade practice for not giving his dues in time and anyhow to cancel the complainant’s claim on legal merit.  So, OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as security money + Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost + Rs.10,000/- for compensation i.e. total Rs.18,000/- and also Rs.2,000/- as the cost which has not been deposited as per order dated 24-12-2013 because maintainability petition was rejected on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the OPs to the complainant but this has not been paid so same shall also be paid to the complainant and accordingly OP shall have to pay Rs.20,000/- in total within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance and disobeyance of the Forum’s order OPs shall have to pay penal interest @Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected same shall be deposited to this Forum.

          OPs are directed to comply the order very strictly otherwise penal action shall be started u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, for which they shall be prosecuted.