Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/690/2019

Shiv Lal Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jagan Nath Bhandari

13 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/690/2019
Date of Institution	:	11/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	13/07/2021

 

 

Shiv Lal Yadav s/o late Sh. Harchand Yadav, r/o Flat No.1424, Pushpak Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its Authorised Signatory/Branch Manager, Office Address : Plot No.2, Sanchar Sadan, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Navdeep Monga, Counsel for OP

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are, in the year 2016 the complainant got landline connection number 0172-263124 from the OP and deposited ₹1,299/-.  The OP with a view to increase clientage launched “Experience –LL–49, Go-Green-Plan”. It was offered with deposit of ₹720/- which was to be adjusted in upcoming monthly rentals. On 17.9.2018, the complainant opted ₹49/- monthly plan and deposited ₹720/-.  Averred, in the month of January, 2019 the OP changed the plan of the complainant without his knowledge and consent. The complainant came to know of the same in February 2019 when he received the invoice dated 4.2.2019 in which the recurring charges were shown as ₹161.90. Further, in the month of March 2019 the plan of the complainant was again changed to monthly rental of ₹299/-. The complainant approached the OP and raised protest, but, to no avail. The complainant alleged that the action of the OP in changing the plan from ₹49/- monthly rental to ₹299/- without his knowledge and consent amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. Stated that the landline number in question was again re-connected on 18.1.2018 to avail the already existing promotional landline plan. Subsequently the promotional plan in question was withdrawn by the BSNL Headquarter vide circular dated 2.7.2018 and it was automatically converted by the computer system into a general plan on 18.1.2019 i.e. after one year.  Maintained the OP had already refunded the security amount of ₹1,410/- to the complainant through cheque after deducting outstanding amount of ₹389/- from the security deposit of ₹1,799/-. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     On perusal of the invoice dated 4.1.2019 (Annexure C-3) annexed by the complainant, it is observed that the complainant was having “Experience_LL_49,Go-Green-Plan” from the OP/BSNL.  In this document we also find that the previous balance is shown as -527.03. Hence, the complainant’s version in para 2 of the consumer complaint that he opted for this scheme on 17.9.2018 appears to be correct. Further, a perusal of the circular dated 11.4.2018 (Ex.R-3), annexed by the OP itself, reveals it was clearly mentioned therein that “At the time of CAF filling, customer’s consent should be taken for conversion to general plan after first one year.”  However, the OP has failed to adduce any documentary evidence that the complainant was ever made aware about changing his existing plan from ₹49/- per month to ₹299/- per month. It is also not the case of the OP that consent of the complainant was obtained before changing his plan. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice by changing the opted plan of the complainant with higher monthly rental plan which must have caused mental and physical harassment to him.
6.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹403.79 to the complainant illegally deducted by the OP towards higher rental plan.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

7.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/07/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member