DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 81 OF 2017
DATE OF FILING: 28.6.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 1.11.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Sri Dipak Kumar Biswas, son of late Indubhusan Biswas of N/1/6, Sampamirza Nagar Housing Estate, (Phase-1), P.O Sarkarpole, P.S Maheshtala, Kolkata – 143.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (Calcutta Telephones), Telephone Bhawan, B.B.D Bag, Kolkata – 700 001.
2. The Divisional Engineer (Indoor), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (The Calcutta Telephones), Behala Telephone Exchange, 598, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 34.
3. The Accounts Officer (TR), Alipore-III, Office of the Area Manager (Alipore), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Calcutta Telephones), 2/5A, Judges’ Court Road (1st Floor), Kolkata – 700 027.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The complainant is a customer of BSNL, Calcutta Telephones, having Land Line connection bearing Telephone no. 2401-2785 since 1994. He has filed the instant complaint under section 12, C.P Act, 1986, praying for following reliefs:
- The O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 i.e the Telephone Authority may kindly be directed to restore the complainant’s land-line telephone immediately.
- That the O.Ps be directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.7,923.56 ( inflated amount Rs.16,898.56 as per available telephone bills since 2004 and modified amount Rs.8975).
- Complainant may please be compensated to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and,
- Cost of litigation may be awarded suitably.
The Telephone Authority i.e O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 filed written statement contending inter alia that there is no cause of action arisen for bringing the instant case and that the instant case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.
The positive case as made out in the written statement is that the complainant did not pay the bill of Rs.851.91 for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.5.2014within due date and therefore, the outgoing facility of the telephone line was suspended. Again he did not pay the bill for the period 1.6.2014 to 15.7.2014 and ,therefore, both the outgoing and incoming facilities were suspended. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and the case should be dismissed in lemini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any cause of action for filing the instant case by the complainant?
- Is the case maintainable in Law?
- Is the case barred by limitation?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief / reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record. Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by them are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1, 2,3 & 4 :
We know very well that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to promote and protect the interest of the consumers. But the interest of the consumers is to be protected within the four corners of the Law as provided in the aforesaid Act. The interest of consumer cannot be protected by giving a go-bye to any provisions of the said Act. Section 24A of the aforesaid Act provides that the complaint is to be filed within two years of the date of cause of action and unless the complaint is filed within this time limit, the complaint shall not be entertained by the Forum.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the case suffers from various latches; firstly, there is want of cause of action to bring the instant case. The Telephone connection of the complainant has been disconnected on 16.7.2014 by the O.P for the reason that the complainant did not pay the bill for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.5.2014 and also for the period from 1.6.2014 to 15.7.2014. If the telephone line is disconnected for non-payment of bill, it appears that the telephone authority has acted properly in terms of the provisions of Law. When an Authority acts in terms of the provisions of Law or Circular which has the force of Law, no cause of action arises for such act of the authority.
In the instant case also, there arises no cause of action for the complainant to bring the instant case, because the fault of non-payment of bill lies with him. As there is no cause of action arising in favour of the complainant, the complainant cannot bring any case before the Forum.
Now to see whether the case is barred by law of limitation or not. The telephone line of the complainant was disconnected on 16.7.2014 by the O.Ps. The instant case is filed on 28.6.2017 i.e more than two and half years after disconnection. This being so, the instant case palpably appears to be barred by limitation under section 24A of C.P Act, 1986. That apart, no petition ,praying for condonation of delay has also been filed by the complainant. As regards any other grievance of the complainant relating to bills from 2004 to 2013, the same is also hopelessly barred by limitation under section 24A of the said Act. The case appears to be not maintainable in Law and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps ,being not maintainable in Law. There is no order passed as to the cost of the proceedings.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
