O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Admittedly, the complainant Smt. Gian Dei, is the widow of late Shri Jyoti Parkash Thakur. Shri Jyoti Parkash Thakur was a freedom fighter. The complainant is the holder of telephone No. 01978-252680. She was having broadband connection. The opposite party used to issue telephone bills regularly and the complainant used to make regular payment of the telephone bills, but she stopped to make payment of the telephone bills since 01-03-2011, hence her telephone was disconnected on 27-08-2011 through automatic computer system.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to refund broadband fee/charges amounting to Rupees 2376/- and to pay a compensation of Rupees 25,000/- and the opposite parties be also directed to restore the telephone connection on payment of Rupees 1,151.97 by the complainant on the grounds that the complainant being widow of a freedom fighter was entitled for a rebate of 50% consumption charges, but the opposite parties have failed to extend the said benefit to the complainant and secondly, the complainant in the month of April 2009 applied for disconnection of broadband connection, modem of which was deposited with lineman Kashmir Singh and application was preferred before Sub Divisional Officer, but the opposite parties remained issuing broadband bill in spite of several requests made by her not to issue the bill as she had applied for disconnection and had deposited the modem but in vain. She remained making payment of the broadband bill till February 2011 and thereafter was compelled to stop the payment of the telephone bill, hence her telephone connection was disconnected by the opposite parties on 18-11-2011 wrongly and illegally which amounts to deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties disputed the said claim and have set up the defense that the opposite parties have given a rebate to the complainant to the extent of 50% over the telephone bills since 15-07-1997 under the freedom fighter quota as per rules. The opposite parties have further set up the defense that the complainant did not move any application for disconnection of the broadband connection nor deposited broadband modem with the opposite parties, and the opposite parties used to issue correct telephone bills to the complainant and as such the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. The opposite parties have further set up the defense that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil Appeal NO. 7687 of 2004.
4. Admittedly, the complainant is the widow of freedom fighter Shri Jyoti Parkash and she had obtained the telephone connection in question under ‘Freedom Fighter quota’ on 15-07-1997. The opposite parties have set up specific defense that they used to give rebate of 50% over the telephone bills in favour of the complainant since 15-07-1997 as per rules. The said fact could not be disputed by the complainant successfully. The complainant has produced in evidence the affidavit of Shri Aman Thakur and Shri Rakesh Kumar Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 respectively. I the said affidavits they have nowhere deposed that the opposite parties have failed to extend rebate of 50% over the telephone bills in favour of the complainant as per rules, hence the complainant has failed the said claim.
5. Secondly, the complainant has claimed that in the month of April 2009 she preferred an application for disconnection of broadband connection and modem was deposited with lineman Kashmir Singh, who disclosed that he had deposited the broadband modem with JTO Gian Chand and application was preferred before SDO, Telephone, which allegations have been disputed by the opposite parties. In support of her case, the complainant has produced in evidence the affidavit of Aman Thakur Annexure C-1 and of Rakesh Kumar Annexure C-2. They have deposed in support of said allegations. The opposite party No.1 is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and opposite party No.2 is JTO Gian Chand, Telephone Exchange Hatwar Centre. No competent authority or duly authorized official of Bharat Sanchar Nigam has deposed an affidavit in support of its defense. Opposite party NO.2 Gian Chand has produced in evidence his affidavit Annexure R-1 vide which he has deposed that the complainant had not moved any application to him for the disconnection of the broadband modem. His version is correct because the complainant has claimed that as per the direction of Kashmir Singh, lineman, the broadband modem was deposited with him and the application was moved before SDO, telephone. No affidavit of SDO (telephone) concerned has been produced in evidence. The opposite parties have not produced in evidence the affidavit of Kashmir Singh, although placed in the file. Shri Kashmir Singh came present before this Forum on 19-08-2014. This Forum has recorded his statement on oath. He has stated that the broadband modem was deposited by the complainant with him which was kept by him in the telephone exchange, however, he did not intimate any official or officer nor he was asked by his officer. The modem was sent by the complainant through one boy. When the complainant filed the complaint, the JTO and SDO (telephone) had asked him as to whether the telephone modem had been deposited with him, upon which he had replied in affirmative and disclosed that the modem had been kept by him in the exchange. The said inquiry was made by the SDO and JTO after the filing of the present complaint. The said statement of Kashmir Singh has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Vide said statement the defense set up by the opposite parties that on inquiry made by them Kashmir Singh had denied that the modem had been deposited with him of the telephone in question stands falsified. The affidavit of SDO (telephone) has not been produced in evidence for the reasons best known to the opposite party. The opposite parties have failed to explain as to why they have taken up a contradictory stand. The reason is apparent as the opposite parties have failed to take right stand and its officials intended to shield the lapses committed by them. In view of the said established facts on record this Forum is left with no alternative except to conclude that the complainant had deposited broadband modem with the opposite parties and applied for disconnection of the broadband connection, but the opposite party failed to disconnect the broadband connection and account for the broadband modem deposited with them due to which they issued wrong telephone bills in respect of broadband connection which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. due to which the opposite parties have received the broadband charges illegally from April 2009, due to which the old aged complainant has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental tension.
6. The opposite party has also taken up the defense that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint in view of the law laid down in case General Manager Telecom Versus M. Krishanan and Another, Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 decided on 01-09-2009, but the facts of the present case are distinct and distinguishable. This Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because the present case pertains to a dispute between a consumer of telephone service and the provider of such service, whereas, in M. Krishanan’s case the decision involved a dispute between the department of Tele Communication which was a Telecom Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act as a private service provider prior to the hivving off telecom services into a separate company namely Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). However, as the powers of a Telegraph Authority are now vested in the private Telecom Service Provider i.e. BSNL hence Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act will have no application and as such this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. By taking this view this Forum is fortified by the law laid down in Revision Petition No. 1164 of 2012 titled Rukmani Devi Versus Prem Singh decided on 09-10-2013 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after relying upon an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Skypack Courier Ltd. Versus Tata Chemical Ltd. 2000 CTJ (SC) (CP) which have been followed by the Hon’ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 201/2013 decided on 12-03-2014 in which it is held as under :
“2. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a latest judgment rendered in Revision Petition No.1164 of 2012 titled Rukmani Devi Versus Prem Singh, decided on 9th October, 2013, has made reference to an earlier judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Versus Tata Chemicals Ltd. 2000 CTJ (SC) (CP) and held that this judgment being by a Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court still holds the field and that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there may exist an arbitration clause, in an agreement, complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would be maintainable as the remedy provided under the Act, is in addition to the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. “
7. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental tension.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to restore the telephone connection of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The opposite party is also directed to pay punitive compensation of Rupees 5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25-11-2011 till the said amount is paid or realized. The BSNL is also directed to pay cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 2500/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 21st day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
