OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 43/2017
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3) Md.Jamatul.Islam - Member
Sri Viswanath Gaur - Complainant
S/O- Late Hanuman Mal Gaur,
R/O Geeta Mansion,4th floor,
H.B.Road, Machkhowa,
P.O. Guwahati-781009,Assam
-vs-
Bharat Sansar Nigam Ltd. - Opp.parties
Represented by its General Manager,
having its office at Admin Building BSNL,Panbazar,
P.O.Guwahati-781001, Assam
Appearance : -
Ld.advocate Mr.Krishanu Deb for the complainant.
Date of exparte argument- 6.2.2018
Date of exparte judgment- 4.4.2018
Exparte Judgment
This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
1) The complaint filed by Sri Viswanath Gaur against Bharat Sansar Nigam Ltd. represented by its General Manager, Guwahati is admitted on 12.5.2017 and notices was served on the opp.parties , but they failed to file written statement and accordingly the case is proceeding on exparte against the opp.parties vide this forum’s order dtd. 10.11.17. The complainant side filed his evidence on affidavit on 5.1.18 and his counsel Ld.advocate Mr.Krishanu Deb filed written written argument on 6.2.18 and forwarded his oral argument on 6.2.18 and accordingly, we have fixed the date of 21st March/18 for delivery of exparte judgment , but on that day we failed to deliver the judgment due to over-work and today we deliver our judgment, which is below.-
2) The case of the complainant , in brief is that he had taken mobile phone connection from Bharat Sansar Nigam Ltd. vide No. 94350-44988 by depositing Rs.2,000/- and in the mean time the opp.party came up with a scheme of providing additional SIM for the existing connection and accordingly he obtained additional SIM vide No. 94351-46176 uses by his family members and he had been paying monthly bills regularly and monthly bill he had been around Rs.1,000/- for the aforesaid mobiles, but the opp.party suddenly served a bill dtd. 5.12.16 for Rs.5,713/- for the period from 1.11.2016 to 30.11.2016 which was abnormally high and excessive and then he protested by his letter dtd. 26.12.2016 for such inflated bill and requested concerned officer of the opp.party- The Accounts Officer (CMTS), BSNL, Panbazar to look into the matter and to provide him necessary details of such inflated charges and also requested for provisional bill as per applicable rules so that provisional payment can be made and service cannot be continued and on received of said letter one Mr.Bikash Singha asked him to make provisional payment of Rs.2,500/- assuring to continue the service without interruption and to make proper investigation into the matter and he, on bonafide belief made payment of Rs.2050/- on 5.1.17 and also made payment of bill dtd.5.1.17 for Rs.1,149/- and mobile phones were continued , but suddenly on 15.2.17 service to both mobile phones had been discontinued by the opp.party without any kind of notice or even any SMS and then he approached the officer of opp.party Mr.Bikash Singha on 16.2.2017 and the latter told him that he had dispatch the letter with the General Manager and the General Manager agreed to 60% rebate on the inflated bill and accordingly necessary corrected bill would be issued with the couple of days. Thereafter, he was served with a bill dtd. 5.2.2017 for Rs.4,100/- where current charge for the period with effect from 1.1.2017 to 31.1.2017 had been shown on Rs.894/- with due date of payment on 28.2.2017 and receiving the said bill he again met Mr.Bikash Singha and offered to make the payment of a current charge of Rs.894/- if the service are restored , but Mr.Singha told him that General Manager settled the disputed bill dtd. 5.12.16, the service cannot be restored and then he did not made payment of said bill thinking there was no use of making payment without any service and moreover he had also made payment of huge amount of Rs.2,500/- towards the provisional bill of the disputed bill which more than payment of normal bills for two months and thereafter he had been visiting the officials requesting him to restore the mobile connection, but they refused to restore the connection. After payment of Rs.2,500/- which provisional bill of the disputed bill the opp.party has no right to disconnect the connection to his mobile and consequently he stopped payment of subsequent bills dtd. 5.3.17 for Rs.4,386/- showing charges for the period from 1.2.17 to 28.2.17 at Rs.486/- and the bill dtd. 5.4.17 for Rs.4,396/- showing charges of period of 1.3.17 to 30.1.17 at Rs.10/-. The sudden disconnection of service to his mobile crippled his connectivity with other people and his reputation was lowered and therefore it cause suffering mental agony to him. The opp.party instead of investigating the dispute of highly inflated bill of Rs.5,713/- from 1.11.2016 to 10.11.16 disconnection his mobile service on 15.1.17 although he made provisional bill of Rs.2,500/-. According to statutory instruction, it is a finding on opp.party to investigate a complaint and to inform the result within a period of two months as well as to issue split payment in against excessive billing complaint on the basis of average of proceeding six bi-monthly bills plus 10% though in case of landline phone and such instructions are in also applicable to mobile phone also. But the opp.party had asked him to pay sum of Rs.2500/- which was more than doubled of the average bills and inspite of such huge amount the opp.party disconnected service to his mobiles and op.party also did not inform him the reason of such inflated bill. Such disconnection against irreparable loss and injury to him . In such circumstances the bill dtd. 5.12.16 for Rs.5,713/- for mobile phone No. 95250-44988 and 94351-46276 may kindly be declared illegal and void and declaration be made the disconnection of service to his said mobiles is illegal and opp.party is liable to restore the service to his said mobiles immediately and to investigation the matter properly and issue fresh bill in respect of the bill dtd.5.12.2016 on the basis of actual use of the mobiles. The opp.party should also be directed to pay him compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment to him and putting him mental agony by such illegal dis-connection of service to his mobile phones.
3) We have perused the evidence of the complainant . From evidence of the complainant, it is seen that the complainant at the beginning, states that the complainant had taken mobile connection from the opp.party originally vide No. 94350-44988 by depositing security amount of Rs.2000/- and thereafter he took one additional Sim being Mobile No. 94351-46276 for the use of his family members and he had been paying around around Rs.1000/- per month as charge since long time but suddenly the opp.party served a bull dtd. 5.12.2006 for Rs.5713/- for the period from 1.11.16 to 30.11.16 which is abnormally high and excessive amount and regarding this matter, he approached the Accounts Officer of the opp.party, Panbazar and requested him to dispose of the matter of billing of high amount vide Bill dtd. 5.12.2006 allowing him to pay provisional payment and service to be continued and then one Bikash Sinha of the opp.party asked him to deposit Rs.2,500/- as provisional payment and assured him to continue the services and to make proper investigation about the inflated bill and he then on bonafide belief made payment of Rs.2,500/- on 5.1.17 and also paid another amount of Rs.1149, but on 15.2.17 services of both mobile phones were disconnected by the opp.party without serving any kind of notice and he then again approached the said Mr. Bikash Sinha and Mr. Bikash Sinha told him that he discussed the matter with the General Manager who agreed to grant 60% rebate on the alleged inflated bill and he will issue necessary corrected bill within a couple of days and ; he received bill dated 5.2.2017 for Rs.4,100/- for the period from 1.1.17 to 13.1.17, where-in the current charge shown as Rs. 894/- and on receiving the said bill he again met Mr. Bikash Sinha and offered to make payment of the current charge which is Rs.894/- if the services are restored but the latter told him that unless the General Manager settle the disputed bill the service can not be restored and accordingly he did not pay the said bill on the ground of no service to his mobiles, and on the ground that he had deposited a huge amount of Rs.2500/- towards provisional payment of the disputed bill and thereafter he also received bill dtd. 5.3.17 for Rs.4386/- for the period from 1.2.17 to 28.2.17 where in current amount shown as Rs.286/- and thereafter he received bill dated 5.4.17 for Rs.4396/- for the period w.e.f. 1.3.17 to 31.3.17 where current charge is shown as Rs.10/- but he did not make payment of these two bills on the same grounds and the opp.party, till date, did not dispose of his complaint against the inflated bill of Rs.5713/- although they are bound to dispose of such complaint within two months of receiving the complaint.
4) We have perused the Ex.1 and found that it is a bill dtd.5.12.16 for the period w.e.f. 1.11.16 to 30.11.16, which is according to complainant is the inflated bill. We have found that it is a bill for use of mobile for one month only. From Ex.4 it is seen that the complainant on 26.12.16 lodged a complaint before the Accounts Officer (CMTS) of the opp.party requesting him to investigate about the inflated bill amount. It is found that this complaint has not been disposed of by the opp.party side till now. We have also found from Ex.3 that ,the complainant deposited Rs.2500/- as provisional payment against the disputed bill on the request of one Mr. Bikash Sinha on his assurance to continue the services to his mobiles. After perusing Ex.4 we have found that, the bill dtd. 5.2.17 of the month of Jan.2017 , where in the current charge is Rs.894/-. After perusing Ex.5, we have also seen that it is a bill dtd. 5.3.17 for amount of Rs.4386/- of the month of Feb.2017 where in the current charge is Rs.286/-only. Ex.6 is the bill dtd. 5.4.17 for the amount of Rs.4396/- where in the current charge is shown as Rs.10/-. It is found that the opp.party side disconnected the service on 15.2.17 even after payment of provisional amount of Rs.2500/- against the disputed bill; and after disconnection,` the opp.party issued bill dtd. 5.3.17 of the period for the month of Feb’17 and also bill dated 5.4.17 of the month of March,2017 and in both the bills they shown Rs.286/- and Rs.10/- as current charge without restoring the connection of service. Thus we have found that the complainant has sufficient ground for not paying bill dtd. 5.2.17, bill dtd. 5.3.17 and bill dtd.5.4.17 and he has also sufficient ground for not paying bill dtd. 5.12.16, which is the disputed inflated bill. It is found that the complainant vide Exhibit 2 (Letter dtd. 26.12.16) requested the Accounts Officer of the opp.party to investigate about the said inflated bill but he has not investigated the matter as per request of the complainant rather the opp.party disconnected the services on 15.2.17. Therefore, we are of opinion that without disposing that complaint the opp.party has no right suddenly to disconnect the service on 15.2.17 and therefore that very act of disconnection of service is illegal and the connection is liable to be restored.
The complainant has not got his grievance against the inflated bill (bill dated 5.12.16) disposed of, as well as the service was disconnected on 15.2.17 inspite of giving assurance by Mr. Bikash Sinha to continue service on payment of Rs.2500/- against the disputed bill, which the complainant paid. Therefore, we hpld that, issuing bill dtd. 5.3.2017 , bill dtd. 5.4.17 and bill dated 5.2.17 is not justified act on the part of the opp.party.
5) Basing on above discussions, we hold that , it is a fit case to direct the opp.parties to restore the services to the mobile of the complainant and to properly investigate the alleged inflated bill (Bill dtd.5.12.16) and make the complainant understand how he is liable to pay the said amount if they can justify said billing or to issue fresh bill if said bill is found to be wrong. After doing that act they will entitle to issue fresh bill of subsequent months. We also found that by disconnecting the services without disposing the complaint of the complainant dtd;. 26.12.16 the opp.party causes much inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and his family members, for which they are liable to pay at least Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
6) Summing up our discussion above , we hold that , the complaint has a prima facie case against the opp.parties which he has succeeded to prove. Therefore, the complaint against the opp.party is allowed on ex-parte and they are directed to restore the services to the mobiles of the complainant immediately and investigate the bill dtd. 5.12.16 and inform the complainant how he is liable to pay the said inflated amount if they find correctness of the said bill or to issue fresh bill if such billing is found not correct and after doing that they are to issue fresh bill of subsequent months without charging fine or interest. They are also directed to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding. They are directed to pay the amounts within 45 days , in default of which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. It is also declared that if they defaulted to investigate the disputed bill as per this Forum’s direction they will not be entitled to the amounts mentioned in the said bill , but will be entitled to current charges after restoring the service to the complainant’s mobile.
Given under our hands and seals on this day of 4th April,2018.
(Smt.Archana.Deka.Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul.Islam) (Md.Sahadat.Hussain)
Member Member President
