BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-12 of 2018
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President,
Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Bighneswar Shroff,aged about 35 years,
S/O-Yugal Kishore Prasad Shroff,
R/O-At-Sunaripara,Barabazaar,
P.O-Khetrajpur,Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha,
Mob-9178403910. …Complainant
Vrs.
1. The G.M.T.D(General Manager Telcom District),
Sambalpur(BSNL) Office at Kacheri Road,
Sambalpur-768001,Odisha.
2. C.G.M.T(Chief General Manager Telcom),
Odisha TelcomCircle,BSNL Bhawan,
Ashok Nagar, Unit-2,
Bhubabeswar-751009. ……O.Ps
For the Complainant:-Nemo
For the O.P-1& 2:Sri.Chakradhar Behera,(Authorised Person)
DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 13.01.2021
DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant is a member of District Bar Association Sambalpur as well as a Consumer of the O.P-1. The Complainant has availed a BSNL Landline telephone connection in his name since the year 2000 vide No- 0663-533017. He had deposited an amount of Rs.1,200/- as security excluding installation charges. Thereafter the telephone number is changed to 0663-2532552. On dtd.29.05.2007 the Complainant wanted to disconnect the telephone line as it is of no use to him and surrendered the telephone set with the O.P-1 . On dtd. 09.06.2017 the Complainant received a message relating to the last telephone bill on his mobile phone for Rs.209/- along with a hard copy of the same. In the last week of October-2017 the Complainant was also called to receive the security amount from the BSNL. When the Complainant reached to the O.P-1, he(the O.P-1) issued a cheque of Rs.391/- in place of Rs.990/-(Rs.1200-Rs.210). On asking the O.P-1 about the refund of incorrect amount he did not respond. Finding no other way the Complainant received a cheque of Rs. 391/- vide no-066273 with hesitation/protest and wrote a note that “less security deposit amount given to me.” For the above Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice he has gone through mental pain agony and became harassed by the O.Ps. The O.P-2 has been made a party to this case as he is the administrative authority of the O.P-1. The cause of action arose from May-2017 to till the date of filling the date of refund of advance security amount and any subsequent date.
The O.P-2 has given authorisation to the O.P-1 who files the written statements which contends that the case is not maintainable as per the section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, which states that any disputes concerning any telegraph line appliances and apparatus between the telegraph authority and a person concerned , the disputes shall be determined by arbitration. Again he clarified that the Computer system for billing is thoroughly upgraded time to time with advanced technology for efficacy and accuracy but during the transfer of data from DOTSOFT to new CDR package some error might have been occurred for which they have transferred Rs.600/- instead of Rs.1,200/-. As the finalisation of bill is purely a computerised process so the O.P-1 has nothing to do with this. But after a through verification the O.P-1 has instantly issued a cheque of Rs.600/- to the Complainant vide cheque No- 073315 on dtd. 26.03.2018 as it was a computer generated mistake, the same in unintentional and is due to technical error during transfer of data.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
- whether the Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
- whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer of the O.Ps as he has availed a telephone connection in his name and paid security money to the O.P-1. Secondly on consideration of the jurisdiction of this Commission it may be stated at the outset that O.Ps have (BSNL) had raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the learned District Commission, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in General Manager (Telecom) Vs M. Krishnan (AIR 2010 SC 90) where there is a special remedy provided in S. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The matter referred to in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, involved a dispute between Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as a service provider prior to the hiving off of telecom services into a separate company namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). Since DoT was also the telegraph authority, reference was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the provisions of section 7B. However, powers of the telegraph authority have neither been vested nor are available to private telecom service providers and BSNL. Therefore, recourse to section 7B in case of disputes between consumers and private service providers and BSNL would not be available. Further, while commenting on the implementation of provisions of National Telecom Policy 2012, related to amendment of Indian Telegraph Act to bring disputes between telecom consumers and service providers within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum) established under Consumer Protection Act, Legal Advisor, DoT opined that District Forums are already having jurisdiction and promulgation of ordinance is apparently not required. The District Consumer Forums are competent to deal with the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.
Thirdly it is observed that in the event of surrender of the telephone connection, the O.P-1 has refunded Rs.391/- through cheque instead of Rs.991/- (security amount of Rs.1,200/– rental for last month of Rs.209/-) which reveals the malafide intension of the O.P-1. Again it can be inferred that after filling of this complaint petition on dtd.06.02.2018, the O.P-1 has issued a cheque of Rs.600/- on dtd.27.03.2018 vide no-073316 after receiving a notice from this Commission with a plea of technical (Computer generated) error is just to cover up his mistake, for which the Complainant became unnecessarily harassed, undergone mental pain and agony for the Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice caused to him. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Sri Tapan Kumar Choudhury vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi” decided on 17 July, 2012 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)onlyas compensation for mental agony of the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand ) as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 (Thirty ) days of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay penal interest of 9% per annum on the above amounts.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 13th day of January, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-Sd/-(13.01.2021) -Sd/-(13.01.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(13.01.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
PRESIDENT
