Order-15.
Date-07/10/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Yogesh Gupta by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant applied for a new telephone with a broadband line of BSNL plan bb home combo ULD 900 on 13.09.2011and for which complainant deposited Rs. 2,300/- as Security Deposit but until 02.06.2012 the telephone instrument was not installed, despite the receipt of the above security deposit.As a consequence of the non-installation of broadband connection the complainant could not run his business and for which his daily income is lost.Complainant sent several verbal reminders as well as written grievance letters and personally also approached the officials of the op but the op turned their deaf ears on complainant’s repeated requests for activation of the said broadband connection.
Out of great frustration complainant sent written communication requesting cancellation of the application and refund of the security deposit held by the op.But instead of refunding the same to the complainant, op raised a bill no. 795491 dated 07.03.2012, amounting to Rs. 4071/- and due date is 28.03.2012.But against that several requests and reminders were made by the complainant to the op.But they did not install the same at the premises of the complainant.
But curiously and ridiculously enough complainant received a copy of legal notice dated 04.03.2015 from the op’s Lawyer asking him for payment of an amount of Rs. 8,879/- for non-existingtelephone and broadband line.Complainant vehemently objected to and gave a suitable reply along with corroborative documents and due to non-installation of instrument and broadband connection, complainant suffered a huge monetary loss, mental agony and unbearable harassment and such an act on the part of the op is deficient and negligent manner of service and at the same time deceitful manner of service for which complainant filed this complaint praying for redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that complainant willfully violated the law of land because he obtained connection of Broadband Line and Telephone Line in his domestic purpose.But he used the same for commercial purpose for which Criminal Procedure should be started against him and op has denied all other allegations as made by the complainant against them.
Further op has submitted that complainant applied for Landline and Broadband Line only as per his requirement and the authority op installed connection as per his requirement a new telephone with a broadband line of BSNL plan bb home combo ULD 900 on 13.09.2011 and it was installed in his office as per his request.The modem was purchased by the complainant outright as per his wish and choice and the authority has no access in his modem and for that reason op did not install the said modem and further it is mentioned that no request was made on behalf of the complainant for installation of modem.It is pertinent to mention that configuration of modem is the sole responsibility and liability vested on complainant and op always ready to serve the customer at any time in case of telephone line and broadband.If the customer is unable to configurate the modem with the broadband connection, op has nothing to do.
Complainant used the telephone line and for that reason the bill was raised by the op but the complainant did not pay the same.Op issued legal notice on 04.03.2015 through their Ld. Advocate Mandira Ghosh for non-payment of telephone bill amounting to Rs. 8,879/-and till today complainant did not pay the same.But on 16.03.2015 through a letter complainant prayed for termination/cancellation/surrender of his telephone line and broadband but he never paid the outstanding balance amount which is still outstanding.Complainant also never handed over the telephone set to the op for surrender and never maintained the proper channel of surrender of his telephone line.To bifurcate the issue of payment, complainant made a vexatious complaint before this Forum.
Op has further submitted that the entire allegation of the complainant is false, fabricated and without the use of the Broadband Line with telephone connection the meter cannot be read in such a manner and bill cannot be prepared and as such allegation are baseless and so complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On careful consideration of the complaint and written version and also hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyer of the op and also the complainant and further relying upon the documents of the parties, it is found that complainant himself admitted his customer Id No. 3006824225 and A/c No. 8006833848 and Telephone No. 033-22889877.
Most interesting factor is that complainant is running a business but address pf business place is not disclosed. No doubt complainant submitted a prayer for surrendering a fixed landline and Broadband Connection No. 03322889877 with immediate effect and by that letter complainant tried to convince that he prayed for surrendering the said line as telephone connection has not been activated. So, he prayed for disconnection and refund of security deposit along with interest.
No doubt a bill was sent against customer Id No. 3006824225 and A/c No. 8006833848 and Telephone No. 033-22889877 and bill period from 01.11.2011 to 29.02.2012 and total bill amount was Rs.4,070.07 paisa and from the said bill it is found that his address is 33A, JL Nehru Road, CIC Building, 9th Floor, Flat No. A10, Kolkata-700071 (WB).
Fact remains that op has failed to produce any document to show that complainant received the landline set and broadband connection and there is no such receipt showing installation of connection and handing over the set by the op and in this regard op has tried to convince that op already fixed the BSNL bb combo ULD 900 on 13.09.2011 and it was installed in the office of the complainant as per his request. But no such document is produced by the op to show that the same was installed in the office address of the complainant and complainant received it.
At the same time op has failed to prove by any cogent document that it was installed at office address. Op has also failed to give the office address of the complainant. All those matters give this Forum a chance to disbelieve the testimony of op regarding extension of telephone and broadband connection in the office of the complainant.
At the same time for the sake of the argument if it is accepted that it was domestic line and it was installed in the office of the complainant, in that case, it is clear that op has been rendering a deceitful manner of business and trade and by taking such money they placed the domestic line in the office of any customer and when op has claimed that complainant had been using the same in his office as commercial purpose for which the said line was disconnected. But such a defence of the op cannot be believed in view of the fact under any circumstances op had no scope to install such a landline (domestic) and broadband line in the office of the complainant in place of his house. If any such act had been done by the op, then it is completely illegal and against the norms of the clause of business on the part of the BSNL. Whatever it may be, it is the duty of the op to prove that it was installed and the item that is landline set was received by the complainant because in all cases at the time of installation of landline against any application BSNL Authority received a receipt in printed form from the customer after delivery of the landline set and that receipt is kept with the file of the application of the customer for granting landline and that receipt is invariably within the custody of the op, op ought to have produced the same before this Forum to prove that landline set was received by the complainant. But no such document is produced by the op for which under any circumstances, this Forum cannot believe the defence of the op rather op’s defence is proved a false story and only to discharge their liabilities, they have taken the defence that the set was handed over and line was installed in the office of the complainant but no such address of the office of complainant is given by the op.
In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that op has failed to prove that he installed the landline and broadband line in the house of the complainant against the application for installation of new connection of line and broadband line so the allegation of the complainant that he never received a broadband line and telephone set and did not get any broadband connection is proved against op. But what prevented the ops not to answer against that allegation prior to this complaint. Only their bill as sent cannot be treated as evidence of connection of telephone line and broadband line but bill can be prepared by the office suomoto because it is one time bill. But question is that along with the bill where is the unit reading statement, because it is known to all if any phone is used in that case the period of use if the said phone and consumption of unit must be noted along with the bill. But no such item bill is noted along with bill and no such bill is submitted by the op.
Considering all the above fact and circumstances, we find that the bill which was sent by the op that is disputed bill being No. 79705491 dated 07.03.2012 and the bill period from 01.11.2011 to 29.02.2012 is found baseless and without any foundation and truth is that against such bill, complainant is not bound to pay any amount because it is proved that the landline was not installed because telephone set was not handed over and broadband line connection was not connected even if it is officially prepared but that is not sufficient to hold that customer enjoyed it. Enjoyment is a factor which can be proved by one receipt and that is receipt of delivery of telephone set and that receipt is within the custody of the op and op has withheld it purposely and truth is that in the op’s custody, there is no such receipt for which op is very much silent and took a defence that domestic set is placed at commercial place of the complainant. But that has not also been proved by any cogent document for which we have no other alternative but to believe the entire allegation of the complainant and at the same time we are inclined to hold that complainant is not liable to pay any amount against bill No. 79705491 dated 07.03.2012 against A/c No. 8006833848 having Customer Id No, 3006824225 and at the same time the claim of the op and their demand notice are all baseless and has not any legal foundation.
No doubt it is apparent in such a situation complainant in writing prayed for canceling his said phone number and broadband line surrendering bb combo no.03322889877 along with broadband as telephone connection had not been activated and it is found that on 02.06.2012 and 20.02.2012 complainant reported the matter and against that op was/is silent which simply proves that the entire defence of the op is vague, baseless and vexatious.
No doubt complainant deposited Rs. 2,300/- as security deposit and no doubt complainant is entitled to said amount after deduction of Rs. 300/- from the op and causing such sort of sufferings and for taking such false and vexatious defence and also for harassing the complainant in such a manner, op shall have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and further shall have to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
Op is hereby directed to refund Rs. 2,000/- out of the security deposit to the complainant and also shall have to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant and for taking such a false defence and further for adopting such deceitful manner of trade.
It is further ordered that the bill being no. 79705491 dated 07.03.2012 or any subsequent bill A/c No. 8006833848 against Customer Id. No. 3006824225 against Phone No. 03322889877 is found a vexatious bill and op cannot claim any such amount against such phone or any bill amount from the complainant at any point of time in future.
But said phone no. of broadband combo UDL 900 shall be treated as a cancelled and surrendered w.e.f. the date of its application for connection on 13.09.2011.
Op is directed to comply the order and satisfy the decree within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order, in that case, penal proceeding shall be started against that op u/s 25 read with 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon op.
