Haryana

Panchkula

CC/302/2016

NIRMAL PARKASH KOHLI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	302 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	02.06.2017

                                                                                          

Nirmal Parkash Kohli, age 54 years, S/o Sh.Ved Parkash, R/o House No.G-55, HMT Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telephone Exchange, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana, through its SDO.

2.       Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., O/o GMT District Ambala, Haryana, through its General Manager.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Ms.Veena Bhutani, Adv., for the Ops No.1 and 2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he has a landline connection No.01733-263977 with facility of broadband installed by Ops. The bill of the complainant started on 16.07.2012 but the broadband was not working properly and the signal of the broadband was very poor. The complainant approached the OP NO.2 who advised him to pay the bill and the complainant paid the bill of Rs.804/- on 14.06.2013 but the services of the broadband was not working properly. The complainant sent an application dated 18.06.2013 to SDO, Telephone Exchange, Kalka for disconnection of the landline telephone connection. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to SDO, Telephone Exchange, Kalka for refund of the security of landline connection on 17.11.2014 and again an application for refund of security amount was moved to General Manager, Telephone Exchange Department, Ambala on 20.11.2014 through registered post but the Ops did not refund the security amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again moved an application as reminder to General Manager, Telephone Exchange Department, Ambala on 25.02.2015 but to no avail. After sending many reminders, the Op NO.1 issued a cheque bearing no.297928 dated 05.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.585/- in the name of the complainant which was not full amount as at the time of installation of telephone connection, the complainant deposited Rs.2000/- (Rs.1200/- as security + Rs.800/- as installation fee). Moreover, the complainant was shocked to receive a defaulter notice dated 06.08.2015 of Rs.258.83 from the Op No.2 whereas no amount was pending against the complainant and the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs.804/- vide receipt No.AMBAB01214061300014 dated 14.06.2013. Therefore, the complainant sent an application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 17.08.2015 for which the Ops sent the reply on 19.09.2015 which is reproduced as under:-

“i.      The telephone connection No.01733-263977 was disconnected on dated 13.07.2013.

ii.       That the refund shall be refunded within 60 days after the disconnection of the connection.

iii.      No.

iv.      Principal amount of Rs.585/- and interest Rs.92/- shall be paid.

v.       Rs.2000/- not in the shape of security, it was registration fees in which Rs.1200/- was as security and Rs.800/- for installation fees. The amount of Rs.585/- was refunded after adjusting the outstanding amount from Rs.1200/-.

The complainant moved an RTI application dated 17.10.2015 in which the complainant asked about the outstanding amount month wise and the Ops replied that security deposit was Rs.1200/- and outstanding amount was Rs.804/-, refundable amount Rs.396/- + set charges Rs.200/- = Rs.596/- and the refundable amount refunded to the complainant was Rs.585/- and balance refundable amount was Rs.11/-. The complainant again moved an RTI application dated 15.02.2016 in which he asked about the month wise breakup of the bills of the landline connection and the Ops replied vide reply dated 28.03.2016 and also supplied the copies of bills dated 01.03.2013 to 31.05.2013 which was total amount of Rs.804/-. Thereafter, the complainant again moved an RTI application dated 02.05.2016 in which he asked about the monthly wise breakup of deduction of Rs.804/- from security deposit for which the Ops replied which was not satisfactory as they also not disclosed the sought information and the amount of Rs.804/- has already deposited by the complainant. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2. The Ops No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement by taking preliminary objection and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that there is special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the same section under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. It is submitted that bill of the complainant started on 16.07.2012 and the broadband was working properly. It is submitted that the complainant paid the bill of Rs.804/- dated 14.06.2013 and also moved an application by the complainant dated 18.06.2013. It is submitted that the complainant has not deposited Rs.2000/- as security. It is submitted that Rs.2000/- was registration fee out of which Rs.1200/- was security and Rs.800/- was installation fee. Out of Rs.1200/- which was security, the outstanding amount of Rs.585/- and interest was paid to the complainant after adjusting the outstanding amount of bill. It is submitted that the Ops issued proper defaulter notice to the complainant for payment of outstanding amount of Rs.258.3/- but he did not make the payment and filed the present complaint. It is submitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.804/- on 14.06.2013 but his connection was disconnected on 13.07.2013 and he was liable to pay the outstanding amount. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 and have also perused the record.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties and going through the material available on the case file which transpires that the present complaint is time barred as it has been filed after lapsing of about three years 4 months and the limitation of filing the complaint is within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant had installed a landline broadband connection No.01733-263977 but the signal of the broadband connection was very poor. The complainant requested the Ops for poor signal of broadband connection but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops for disconnection of the landline connection which was disconnected on 13.07.2013, therefore, cause of action has arisen on 13.07.2013 but the complaint was filed for refund of security on 07.11.2016 after expiry of two years of limitation.
6.  Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which deals with the issue of limitation, is extracted hereunder:-

 

•  
•  

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) has held that Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer For a filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

7. In view of the above discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case law Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the complaint and the parties shall bear their own costs.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

02.06.2017 JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR    DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                              MEMBER              PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT