Tripura

StateCommission

A/49/2017

The General Manager, BSNL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abdul Kayam Choudhury - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Kakali Deb, Smt. Ananya Deb

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No.A.49.2017

 

 

 

1. The General Manager,

(Telephone Department), BSNL,

Tripura, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

 

2.  Accounts Officer (TR)

(Telephone Department),

Computer Generated Bill, BSNL Tripura,

Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin – 799001.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

 

•  

 

1. Abdul Kayam Choudhury,

S/o Afsuruddin Choudhury,

Baldakhal, P.O. West Champamura,

P.S. Bodhjungnagar, Khayerpur,

Jirania, West Tripura, Pin - 799008.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                                        Ms. Kakali Deb, Adv.      

For the Respondent:                                      Respondent in person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:    11.12.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellants, the General Manager, (Telephone Department), BSNL Tripura, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala and Accounts Officer (TR) (Telephone Department), Computer Generated Bill, BSNL Tripura, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) against the judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C. 100 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed the opposite parties-BSNL not to impose charge any fees for the free calling period from 1^st May, 2015 and also to pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs.5,000/-. The amount of compensation is to be paid within a period of 2 months. The appellant-opposite parties have also filed an application for condonation of delay of 79 days along with this appeal.

2. The delay of 79 days in preferring the appeal was condoned by this Commission on 15.11.2017 subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost within a period of 10 days from the date of order to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant). Accordingly, the appellant-opposite parties paid the aforesaid amount of cost to the respondent-complainant.
3. Today the appeal is fixed for admission hearing.
4. Heard Ms. Kakali Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties and Mr. Abdul Kayam Choudhury, the respondent-complainant appearing in person.
5. As agreed to by the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
6. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Abdul Kayam Choudhury, filed an application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging that the complainant applied for a connection of land phone, which was accordingly given to him being Phone No.255-1451 on 17.05.2014.Thereafter, the BSNL Authority raised a bill for an amount of Rs.3,395/- including night call charges against the aforesaid land phone for the month of May, 2015. It is also alleged that the BSNL advertised through local newspaper as well as online that there will be free night call from 09.00 pm to 07.00 am with effect from 1^st May 2015. Keeping in view the said facilities provided by the BSNL with the said advertisement, the complainant made his phone calls, but the BSNL charged for the night calls during that period. Complainant personally contacted with BSNL and requested the BSNL Authority to waive the claim. The matter was also taken to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement, but the same could not be done.

7. The opposite parties filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant was availing bill plan of LL-New Annual Plan 1540 which is not a general plan of Rural and Urban areas as ascribed in circular R and C-CFA No.03/15-16 dated 10.04.2015. Subsequently, the said plan was renamed w.e.f. 17.05.2015. As per the plan, the complainant deposited Rs.1,540/- as rent for one year for the aforesaid land phone line. On 14.08.2015, complainant applied for getting monthly billing system i.e., on general plan which enjoys unlimited calls during night from 09.00 pm to 07.00 am and accordingly, the facility was provided to him on and from 15.08.2016 as earlier plan, which was availed by the complainant did  not cover free calling facilities. The bill amounting to Rs.3,394/- was claimed and Rs.1,328.69/- was adjusted for shifting to new plan, thus there was no deficiency in service.
8. The complainant produced the bill dated 06.07.2015 for the period from 17.05.2015 to 16.05.2016 of Rs.3,395/-. Payment due date was 27.07.2015, bills of 06.09.2015 and 06.07.2015, local call bills, newspaper, letters written to G.M. BSNL Telecom Division and also online advertisement by BSNL along with other bills.
9. The opposite parties, on the other hand, produced the telephone bill, notice to opposite parties, circular, authorization letter, and also examined one witness, namely, Samir Kr. Pal, an authorized officer of the BSNL.
10. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record passed the judgment dated 20.06.2016 in Case No. C.C.100 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent and the appellants BSNL was directed to exempt the respondent from payment of bill from 1^st May, 2015 for night calls made from 09.00 P.M. to 07.00 A.M and the amount already paid is to be refunded. The appellants BSNL was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-complainant payable within two months, if the same is not paid, then it will carry interest @9% per annum.
11. The aforesaid judgment dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned District Forum was challenged before this Commission by the opposite parties BSNL and the same was registered as Appeal Case No. A/38 of 2016 wherein this Commission set aside the aforesaid judgment of the learned District Forum and the case was remanded back to the learned District Forum for deciding the case afresh by providing an opportunity to the complainant for filing his Affidavit-in-Chief and also providing opportunity to the opposite parties to cross-examine the complainant as the learned District Forum passed the judgment only on the basis of the complaint petition and the documents without any oral evidence of the complainant. On remand of the case by this Commission, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2017 which is now under challenged by the opposite parties BSNL on the ground that the learned District Forum failed to consider the fact that the opposite parties BSNL provided the complainant night call facility on the basis of his application dated 14.08.2015 w.e.f. 15.08.2016. Another ground for challenging the impugned judgment is that the learned District Forum failed to consider the aspect that admittedly the complainant was under the LL - New Annual Plan of 1540 since 17.05.2015 to 16.05.2016 and for which the complainant is not entitled to get the free night calls offered by the opposite parties BSNL as the said free call facility was provided only for the person who are guided by the General Monthly Plan.
12. Perused the impugned judgment. On perusal of the records, it appears that the learned District Forum examined the complainant as P.W.1 and one Samir Kumar Paul as D.W.1.
13. Ms. Deb, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum failed to interpret the Circular of BSNL dated 10.04.2015 for which itself, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. She further submits that admittedly the complainant was under the LL - New Annual Plan 1540 up to 14.08.2015 and for such plan a consumer like the complainant was not entitled to any benefit of free calling during night time from 09.00 pm to 07.00 am, but the learned District Forum not only directed the opposite parties BSNL not to charge fees for the night calls, but also awarded compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- which is wholly bad in law. She also submits that though on 14.08.2015, the complainant requested the opposite parties BSNL Authority for providing him the General Monthly Plan, but the BSNL Authority had given the benefit of the monthly plan to the complainant even for the period from 01.07.2015 to 31.08.2015. Meaning thereby, the complainant was charged for night calls for the period from 01.05.2015 to 30.06.2015, as for that period, the complainant was within the Annual Plan i.e. LL-New Annual Plan 1540. She has finally contended that the advertisement in the newspaper, namely, Dainik Sambad, as relied upon by the complainant cannot be the basis for deciding the free call with effect from 1^st May 2015, as in the said advertisement, it is specifically stated that for details, contact with CSC i.e. Customer Service Centre, but in the instant case, the complainant did not contact with the CSC for his detailed information regarding the free call. She has also referred to the Circular R&C-CFA No.03/15-16 Dated 10.04.2015 (Exhibited document) to show that the introduction of unlimited free call during night hours i.e. from 09.00 pm to 07.00 am is only for Revision of rural/urban landline general plans and Revision of special landline plan, but not for annual plan under which the land telephone line of the complainant remained upto 13.08.2015.
14. On the other hand, the complainant who appeared in person has submitted that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong and rightly passed the impugned judgment as the complainant was entitled to the free night calls from 01.05.2015 onwards even in absence of any request from him to the opposite parties BSNL Authority.
15. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the entire evidence on record. It appears from the record that only one bill relating to the period from  01.05.2015 to 30.06.2015 was in question before the learned District Forum wherein the opposite parties BSNL Authority charged for night calls, as the bill plan of the complainant was under LL - New Annual Plan 1540 for that period and the consumer of such plan was not covered by the free call facility as mentioned in the newspaper advertisement, as the Circular dated 10.04.2015 specifically stated regarding the night call facilities for a particular class of consumers, i.e., who were covered by the Revision of rural/urban landline general plans and Revision of special landline plan. Admittedly the complainant was under the LL - New Annual Plan 1540 up to 14.08.2015 i.e. the date when the complainant requested the BSNL for converting his telephone line from the then existing Annual Plan to General Monthly Plan. Therefore, according to us, the complainant is entitled to the benefit of free calls from the period from and after of 14^th August, 2015 not prior to that, but fact remains that the opposite parties BSNL Authority provided the benefit of free calls to the complainant from 01.07.2015 to 31.08.2015, as the bill was issued for that period on 06.09.2015 i.e. after the date of application of the complainant i.e. 14.08.2015.
16. In the instant case, it is the complainant consumer who himself converted his telephone connection from General Plan to By Annual Plan and after discontinuation of the By Annual Plan to LL - New Annual Plan 1540 and thereafter from Annual Plan to General Plan with effect from 14.08.2015. Therefore, it is he who himself wanted to continue in the LL - New Annual Plan 1540 till the date of his application. Thus, there was no wrong in the part of opposite parties BSNL Authority and thus question of deficiency of service so far opposite parties BSNL is concerned does not arise.
17. However, the disputed bill dated 06.07.2015 raised by the opposite parties BSNL Authorities amounting to Rs.3,395/- for the period from 01.05.2015 to 30.06.2015 was subsequently alleged to have been revised and the amount payable was Rs.1,862 instead of Rs.3,395/-. The Accounts Officer of the BSNL who appeared before this Commission is not in a position to say as to whether the revised bill is genuine one or not. The BSNL Authority is directed to examine the aforesaid aspect and regularize the matter, if the revised bill is found a genuine one.

In view of the above, the direction of the learned District Forum asking the opposite parties BSNL not to charge any fees for the  free calling period from 1^st May, 2015 and awarding compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- is wholly bad in law and accordingly the impugned judgment is set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.