Kerala

Idukki

CC/145/2019

Susan John - Complainant(s)

Versus

B S N L OFFICER T D P - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 1.8.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th  day of September, 2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.145/2019

       Between

Complainant                                        :   Susan John,

                                                                 Vadakkemelethil,

                                                                 Madakkathanam P.O.,

                                                                 Vazhakkulam, Thodupuzha.

        And

Opposite Party                                     :   The Accounts Officer,

                                                                 TR III, BSNL,

                                                                 Telephone Exchange Building,

                                                                 Thodupuzha.

     (By Adv: M. Animon)

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

          1.  Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed here under :

 

          Complainant had applied for BSNL land line connection in 1996 and had remitted Rs.3,000/- for obtaining the connection.  Opposite party is Accounts Officer of TR III, BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Thodupuzha.  She had obtained connection also, phone number being 229117.  At that time, she was residing in Thodupuzha in a rented house.  When she had shifted her residence in 2006, she had applied for relocation of the connection.  The request was kept pending due to technical reasons.  After 2006, complainant did not have any telephone connection.  Though she had repeatedly requested for return of Rs.3,000/-, deposited by her, amount has not been repaid to her.  Registered letters were sent on several occasions.  Complainant therefore prays for refund of Rs.3,000/- from opposite party.

 

2.  Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version.  Its contentions are briefly discussed here under :

                                                                                                    (cont….2)

 

• 2  -

Opposite party admits that, telephone number  04862  229117 was provided to complainant on 18.2.2000.  Complainant        had initially paid Rs.1,000/- for connection at Chithirapuram Telephone Exchange, on 13.1.1997 as registration deposit.  Registration was transferred to Thodupuzha Telephone Exchange on 19.10.1999.  Complainant had paid Rs.1,440/- as advance rental deposit from new station at Thodupuzha.  She has also made a deposit of Rs.720/- on 11.2.2002 at Thodupuzha.  Total deposit made by her is Rs.3,160/-.  This connection was closed on 27.2.2013.  Dues of complainant at the time of closure came to Rs.1,534/-.  Details are give below:

 

Phone No.      Bill No.       Bill Date       Bill Amount        Amount adjusted

                       from deposit

          229117        32664435       7.6.2006        Rs.607.06               Rs.607.06

          229117           35750046      7.8.2006         Rs.414.06               Rs.414.06

          229117          275787091     5.4.2013         Rs.513.00               Rs.513.00

         

                              Total Amount adjusted against deposit       -       Rs.1534.00

 

Due to technical reasons, refund could not be processed.  An amount of Rs.1,626/- is available at petitioner’s credit after adjusting dues of Rs.1,534/-.  Steps have already been taken for refund of the amount to complainant.  Bank Account  details are requested from complainant for making payment.  Hence opposite party prays for disposal of the case in its favour.

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence, after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps.  During the pendency of these proceedings, husband of complainant, upon authorization of his wife, the complainant, was permitted to represent her in the proceedings.  He was examined as PW1 on her behalf and Exts.P1 to P3 series, 4 in numbers were marked.  On the side of respondent, present Accounts Officer of Accounts Office, BSNL was examined as RW1. Ext.R1 extract of bills for amount due from complainant was marked by her.  Thereafter evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the Points which arise for consideration are :

1.  Whether complaint is barred by limitation ?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3000/- as refund of deposit made by her?           3.  Reliefs and costs ?

 

4. Point Nos.1 :

 

          No contentions were advanced in this regard, by the complainant.  Complainant has pleaded that she had deposited Rs.3,000/- in 1996 for obtaining BSNL land line                                                                                                              (cont…3)

• 3  -

connection.  In the written version filed, the deposit is admitted, however, opposite party claims that it was during different periods and for different amounts.  In  1997,  complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- as registration deposit.  On  18.2.2000, she had paid advance rental deposit of Rs.1,440/-.  On 11.2.2002, she had also paid an amount of Rs.720/- at Thodupuzha.  Thus, total deposit made by her would be Rs.3,160/-.  Complainant in this regard would rely upon Ext.P3 series, 4 in numbers.  Ext.P3 is for deposit of Rs.1,000/- at Chithirapuram.  Ext.P3(a) is with regard to deposit of Rs.1,473/.  Ext.P3(b) discloses that rental deposit Rs.1,440/- and as per Ext.P3(c), complainant is seen to have paid  Rs.517/- whereas deposit in her credit was Rs.516.60/-.  PW1 has not explained the difference in amounts shown to be deposited in written version and amounts claimed by complainant as deposited in 1996.  Whatever it may be, admittedly there was a deposit of Rs.3,160/-, last remittance being on 11.2.2002.  Complainant claims that she had demanded return of deposit, on several times after 2006, since in 2006, her telephone was disconnected.  Towards this, PW1 would give evidence that Ext.P2 discloses that there was no telephone connection available for the complainant after the said letter.  That Ext.P2 amounts to proof of disconnection. 

 

We have perused the documents carefully.  P2 discloses that complainant was advised to submit an application in writing, to keep the telephone number in Department safe custody, till shifting become feasible.  That the phone is kept under safe custody due to non availability of cable wire, that shifting is not feasible presently to the new location requested for, by the complainant.  Vide Ext.P2, complainant was also informed that telephone was shifted thrice, once in 2002, then in 2004 and again in 2006, after it was installed on 5.1.2000.  That the shifting of the phone to new premises will be feasible only after expansion of WLL Exchange at TDP, which was expected to take place in the current financial year.  This letter is dated 12.10.2006.  It does not disclose that the telephone connection of complainant was disconnected.  Letter is to the effect that it was being kept under safe custody.  There is nothing in the complaint or in the documents produced, to show that the complainant had taken proceedings against opposite party for refund of amount deposited by her, after Ext.P2, until the filing of this case.  Though it is pleaded that amount was requested to be returned repeatedly by sending registered letters, nothing was produced to prove this fact.  This complaint was filed only on 1.8.2019.  If  the case of complainant that her telephone connection was disconnected in 2006 is to be accepted, the said complaint would be hopelessly barred under Section 24 of the Act.  According to opposite party, disconnection was only in 2013.  Amount to be repaid is only Rs.1,626/- and that steps are being taken to refund the same.  Thus, even if it is presumed that amount became due in 2013, yet nothing was done by complainant even after that until filing of the complaint in 2019, to get back the amount due to her, from the opposite party towards refund of the deposit.  No reason is given for delay in filing of complaint.  In fact, the complaint is too brief and does not                                                                                                          (cont….4)

• 4  -

disclose what transpired between complainant and opposite party, after 2006. As mentioned earlier, copies of  communications sent by registered post to the BSNL, by complainant, seeking refund of deposit amount were produced.  In short, even it is presumed that the disconnection was in the year 2013 and not in 2006, complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years of accrual of cause of action.  Instead it was filed only in 2019, to be exact on 1.8.2019. Being a money claim there is no continuity and nore such continuity can be presumed for deficiency service on this count. No reasons were given by complainant for the delay.  Therefore in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. British India Corporation Ltd. and others (2003 KHC 1963), complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, question of limitation is a mandate to the Forum and irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the Forum must consider and apply it, if there is no dispute on facts.  There are several decisions of Apex Court in this context of which we will quote two more, which are,  Haryana Urban Development Authority and others Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd (2013 KHC 3926) and Kandimalla Raghavaiah Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. and another (2009 KHC 4761).  Due to pandemic situation, this Commission was unable to consider this point during preliminary stages.  However, it has been considered on merits by us now and we find for the reasons mentioned above that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section  24 of the Act.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

 

Point No.2 :

 

          Complainant has claimed Rs.3,000/- towards refund of deposited amount by him.  As per written version filed, total deposit of Rs.3,160/- was made by him.  Out of this, opposite party has deducted Rs.1540/- as per Ext.R1.  PW1 claims that complainant has not received detailed bills pertaining to the 2 bills of 2006 and seeks production of its copies and counter foils.  However RW1 has given evidence that bills are old and are not being retained in the system.  During cross examination, PW1 himself has admitted that he has not retained or rather complainant does not possess any bills received by her in the year 2006.  That being so, it cannot be said that opposite party is at fault for not maintaining  bills of the year 2006 with them anticipating this contest in 2019.   Though validity of 3 bills mentioned is being challenged by complainant, nothing was produced by him to substantiate his arguments.  Therefore, we find that complainant has not proved his claim for refund of Rs.3,000/-.  However, opposite party has admitted that an amount of Rs.1,626/- is available at petitioners credit after adjusting dues and that steps are being taken for payment of the same, provided bank details are furnished by complainant.  Though the said amount can be considered as due to the complainant, in view of the fact that the complaint is barred by limitation, there can be no finding regarding deficiency in service on a cause barred by limitation and hence no order of                                                                                                                         (cont….5)

• 5  -

compensation or repayment as such can be made in this matter.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 

 

Point No.3 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs.  However, we would hasten to add that the order will not in any manner preclude the opposite party from making refund as mentioned in its written version filed in this case, upon the complainant providing requisite details to effect repayment. 

 

            Pronounced by this Commission on this the   19^th  day of September, 2022

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                           SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                     Sd/-

           SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                               Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

    

            Forwarded by Order,

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1         -  John Kosy                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1        -  Ancy Varghese

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1      -  Authorisation of complainant.

Ext.P2      -  Copy of letter from OP to complainant dated 12.10.2006.

Ext.P3  -  copy of registration transfer certificate for deposit of Rs.1,000/- at

 Chithirapuram. 

Ext.P3(a)  -  copy of demand note with regard to deposit of Rs.1,473/-. 

Ext.P3(b)  -  copy of  bill for  rental deposit Rs.1,440/-.

Ext.P3(c)  -  copy of  bill for Rs.517/- whereas deposit in her credit was Rs.516.60/-.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1     -   Bill extract of the disputed telephone number.