JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 27.10.2014 , passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata , Unit II, in CC No. 58 of 2014 , whereby the complaint has been allowed on contest with cost against the OPs and with direction upon one of the OPs to submit a report in the matter of amount lying as security deposit even after surrender of telephone line and broad band by the customers.
The complaint case, in short , was as follows:
The Complainant received on 21.10.2006 an e-mail from Mr. Bhuvaneswar Prasad , DGM (Telecom Revenue ) , Calcutta Telephones, stating that the telephone bill for October, 2006, was Rs. 11,463/- which appeared to be exorbitant and as such, the Complainant requested for a proper printed bill. The Complainant’s grievance was not addressed. His telephone service was disconnected / disrupted by barring outgoing calls . Repeated requests for restoration of telephone service went in vain. The Calcutta Telephones sent a lawyer’s notice dated, 24th January, 2007, alleging non-payment of telephone bills and asking the Complainant to pay Rs. 16,286/- within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice wrongly claimed the bill dated 7th January, 2007, for Rs.853/- towards his disconnected telephone , though the said bill amount had already been unjustly debited by Calcutta Telephones from the Complainant’s bank account through ECS. By a letter dated 23rd February , 2007 , it was informed that the security deposit against his telephone was adjusted due to non-payment of telephone bills . The Complainant came to know from the telephone bill print outs that the bill for October 2006 contained the broad band bills dating back to June , 2005. The Chief Accounts Officer ( Arrear Cell ) advised the Complainant to settle the matter to avoid further troubles and to have a speedy reconnection of broad band and telephone line. The Complainant paid an advance settlement amount of Rs. 2,819/- against the telephone bill dated 7th November, along with three blank post dated cheques towards final settlement amount which was to be worked out later. Though the telephone services have been restored , the broad band connection has been restored ‘only for a day’. The false and fictitious bills raised by the Telephone authority were being threatened to be realized by encashing the blank cheques. In the said circumstances , the Complainant approached the Ld. Forum below with prayer for direction upon the OPs to restore uninterrupted telephone and broad band connection with cancellation of false and fictitious telephone bills along with payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and payment of costs.
The complaint was contested by the OPs denying all material allegations . The OPs submitted that the Complainant suppressed material facts . The bill dated 07.10.2006 amounting to Rs. 11,463/- included the broad band usage charges for the period from 24.06.2005 to 30.09.2006, but as the bill was not paid , telephonic message was sent as per telephone rules and temporary disconnection order was made on 28.11.2006. Subsequent bills were raised , but due to nonpayment of bill, the out going facility was withdrawn as per written request of the Complainant. For installment payment , 3 post dated cheques against 3 bills were received and duly encashed. The telephone line with broad band connection was restored till surrender of the telephone line on 26.05.2012. A sum of Rs. 1,846/- was sent by cheque as refund , but the Complainant with a wrongful intention filed the complaint case though the case is not maintainable. The question of excess and exorbitant billing as alleged by the Complainant had no factual and legal basis. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the case was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Forum below after perusing the materials on record including the W.V. observed that the bill sent by the OP on 21.10.2006 for a sum of Rs. 11,463/- included the broad band charges along with rental charges and other charges . It was also observed that though the Complainant deposited security amount of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of taking telephone in the year 1998 , there was no proof showing that a cheque amounting to Rs.1846 /- was sent to the Complainant on 14.07.12. Ld. Forum below , accordingly, directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,846/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for harassing the Complainant together with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- . However, the amount of compensation though initially noted as Rs. 2,000/- , was put as Rs. 5,000/- in arriving at a total sum of Rs. 11,846/- , presumably due to typographical mistake . Ld. Forum below also directed the Chief Accounts Officer, TR, Legal Cell ‘to submit a report showing how much amount is still in the account of the department against the deposit of security amount even after surrender of the telephone line and broad band line by the customers’.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the OPs -turned-Appellants have come up before this Commission with prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.
The memorandum of appeal has been filed together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint with annexure thereto , the W.V. filed by the OPs and other documents.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the complaint case was not at all maintainable before the Consumer Forum as there is specific bar and a petition on the point of maintainability was filed before the Ld. Forum below which was decided against the settled principle of law laying down that as per provision of Section 7 (b ) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the dispute was to be referred to the arbitrator if the dispute is regarding billing . The order passed by the Ld. Forum below is illegal and not based on material facts. As the Respondent / Complainant did not pay up the due bills of broad band connection for the period from 2006 to 2007 , the connection was temporarily disconnected with corresponding telephone service. However, such service was restored after payment of installment which the Respondent /Complainant made without any grievance. The amount of refund payable against adjustment of his security deposit was made and the balance amount of Rs. 1846/- was sent to the Complainant which he refused to encash . There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. No question arises as to payment of compensation . Hence, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed .
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent /Complainant submitted that the OPs disconnected the telephone line with broad band service without valid reasons. The Respondent / Complainant was surprised to receive an exorbitant bill amounting to Rs.11,463/- . He should have been provided the original bills for the period of claim. Inspite of sending original bill, an e-mail was sent to the Respondent / Complainant which was not proper. Such act on the part of the OPs caused harassment for which the Appellant/OPs must pay compensation . Citing a number of judgments / orders , i.e., order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2011 , order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 1 (1996) CPJ 335 (NC) , order of Hon’ble Meghalay State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2014 (3) CPR 7 (Megh) , order of Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, II (2013) CPJ 164 (TN) and the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2 (2013) CPJ 175 (JHAR) , Ld. Advocate asserted that as per Section 2 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act , 1997, TRAI , the complaint of an individual consumer is maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the Ld. Forum below rightly decided about the maintainability of the Complainant’s case and decided the matter. The compensation and costs as allowed by the Ld. Forum below is very much on lower side and may be enhanced for the sake of justice.
Decision with Reasons:
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity or legal infirmity.
It is a fact that the Complainant / Respondent was intimated vide an e-mail from the Appellant/OP No.1 on 21.10.2006 that the telephone bill for October 2006 of the Respondent/Complainant was Rs. 11,463/- . In this connection , Ld. Forum below observed that ‘it was a bill for back period when broad band was given to the Complainant but broad band charges was not assessed in the previous bills and subsequently for one year broad band charges of Rs.10,326.66 was included in the bill dated 07.10.2006 along with rental charges and other charges for the telephone bill and so, the amount of the bill was Rs. 11,463/-’. Ld. Forum further observed that the Complainant failed to show that up to 26.05.2012 , he cleared all the bills, so the deduction of Rs. 2280/- from the total security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- was found to be reasonable. However, that a cheque for Rs. 1,846/- was sent to the Respondent/Complainant after surrender of his telephone and broad band line could not be proved by the OPs in any manner. In this connection , the Appellant , in their memo of appeal stated that vide annexure E to the memorandum of appeal a Xerox copy of the cheque No. 053814 dt. 19.05.14 has been annexed. The said annexure is but a copy of the letter dated . 18.10.2014 addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer / TR/ Legal Cell with the mention of the fact that the cheque in question has been issued and it was admitted in the said letter that the cheque was not cleared implying that the money was not received by the payee, i.e., the Respondent / Complainant. In this regard , Ld. Forum’s order to refund the said sum of Rs. 1,846/- is found to be justified.
It appears from record that the point of maintainability being raised by the OPs before the Ld. Forum below , the matter was duly considered and decided vide Order No. 8 dt. 06.05.2014 . No revision prayer was filed by the Appellant/OP and as such, the question of maintainability of the complaint case at this stage appears to be infructuous.
Direction of the Ld. Forum below upon the Chief Accounts Officer TR legal cell to submit report how much amount is still in the account of the department against the deposit of security amount even after surrender of the telephone line and broad band line by the customers , particularly after completion of the adjudication process, was an unnecessary proposition. The purpose of getting such report after pronouncement of final order has not been specified .
Upon consideration of all material facts on record , we are inclined to hold that the impugned order may be up held except for the facts that the above stated direction of the Ld. Forum below has been made without any cogent purpose and that the amount of compensation has been put differently in the same order , once as Rs. 2,000/- and then as Rs. 5,000/- which, in all reasonable presumption, is a result of typographical error .
The total amount of Rs. 11,846/- including Rs. 5,000/- as compensation may be amended as Rs. 8,846/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- as cost + Rs. 2,000/- as compensation + Rs. 1846/- as refund against the balance lying with the security deposit. In the said context , the appeal may be allowed in part. Hence,
Ordered
that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part with modification of the impugned order to the effect that a total sum of Rs. 8,846/- in place of Rs. 11,846/- shall be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent within a period of 40 days from the date of this order , failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 8% p.a from the date of this order till full realization and other parts of the impugned order shall stand expunged. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
