DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.124 of 27-04-2018

Decided on 21-05-2019

Subhash Chander Sharma S/o Shambu Ram Sharma R/o House No.15324-B, Dhillon Nagar, Joganand Road, Bathinda

........Complainant

Versus

1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Bathinda, through its General Manager.

2.General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Bathinda.

3.Circle Office of Chief GMT Telecom Limited, Punjab Circle, Plot No.2, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.G.S Khokhar, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Sh.Jasvir Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Subhash Chander Sharma (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of landline/phone No.0164-2272625 at his residence Bathinda. He is advocate and social worker. His phone number is too well known. He deposited Rs.3000/- as security with opposite parties, which is refundable to him on the date of surrender of the telephone connection. This connection is in existence since 1998. Previously, it was in the name of wife of complainant, but later on, it was got transferred in the name of complainant. Complainant was having broadband services, but there was no proper signal and stability. As such, the service was stopped and simple phone was continuing.

3. It is alleged that there are a lot of breakage in the service line. Due to this, it is not working, but the fault is not being removed and false excuses are being made. There was no proper service on the part of opposite parties. As such, in the year 2007, the broadband connection was got disconnected by the complainant and thereafter broadband was not in use.

4. It is further alleged that since November 2015, the phone is lying almost dead and it is not functioning. The complainant lodged several complaints i.e complaint No.10366310 dated 17.2.2017, but the same was not attended and it has been shown to have been 'OK'. No call was ever made to the complainant. Similarly, complaint No.1036711091 was lodged on 23.2.2017, but the same was also of no effect. The complainant has made phone calls to one J.E Snow Rattan on mobile No.94174-73174, but often he did not attend the call and if picked up the call, he never gave any proper reply. In the year 2017, the complainant was having one way facility and it was safe and phone was in safe custody scheme.

5. It is further alleged that for the last about 2 years, the complainant is unnecessary paying the bills of the phone. No benefit is being drawn by him. He is also entitled for refund of the unnecessary bills paid by him during the last 1.5 years. In the month of September 2017, the complainant under protest has permanently got the telephone permanently disconnected.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed refund of security amount of Rs.3000/-; refund of amount of bills paid in excess during which the phone remained dead; Rs.90,000/- as compensation for harassment and botheration and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. He has no locus-standi to file the complaint. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands.

   As per opposite parties, true facts are that the complainant applied for permanent disconnection of telephone facility vide his application dated 25.9.2017. The request for disconnection was accepted and out of amount of Rs.3000/- the security, bill dated 24.11.2017 amounting to Rs.49/- was charged. Besides this, as per rules, the installation charges, Rs.800/- alongwith GST Rs.40/-, total amount of Rs.889/- being the outstanding charges and installation charges, other charges and Rs.2111/- was sent to the complainant under payment advice dated 17.2.2018 alongwith cheque No.403358 dated 17.2.2018 amounting to Rs.2111/-, but he flatly refused to accept the cheque and returned back the cheque for refund sent by opposite parties. He has no cause-of-action to file the complaint. He does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under 'Act' and lastly, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties

7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is holder of telephone connection in question. Receipt of security amount of Rs.3000/- is also admitted. All other averments of the complainant are denied.

8. It is further mentioned that due to the construction work of over bridge at the Canal during road widening work of NH 7, the underground cables and pillars were shifted to safer side. During this period, the complainant lodged certain complaints. He was accorded rebate of Rs.225/- for faulty number for 1.5 months.

9. It is further asserted that telephone connection was working and no other complaint was ever lodged by the complainant up to 2016. However, 2/3 complaints were lodged during 2017. The competent authority sanctioned the rebate of Rs.225/- against the complainant for 1.5 months. Every complaint was being attended and faults were removed immediately to the satisfaction of the complainant. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

11. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence bills, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C12); Receipts, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C4); Demand notice, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C5); his affidavit dated 13.10.2018, (Ex.C6); affidavit of Hargurdeep Singh dated Singh dated 16.10.2018, (Ex.C7); legal notice, (Ex.C8); postal receipts, (Ex.C9 to Ex.C11); photocopy of detail of message, (Ex.C13); photocopy of demand note, (Ex.C14); photocopy of affidavit of Subhash Chander Sharma, (Ex.C15); photocopies of bills, (Ex.C16, Ex.C17, Ex.C20 and Ex.C21); photocopies of application forms, (Ex.C18 and Ex.C19); photocopies of payment receipts, (Ex.C22, Ex.C24 and Ex.C25); affidavit of Nachhatar Singh dated 26.10.2018, (Ex.C23) and closed the evidence.

12. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohinder Pal dated 3.1.2019, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of bills, (Ex.OP1/2, Ex.OP1/3, Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/7); photocopies of application forms, (Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/8, Ex.OP1/12, Ex.OP1/13 and Ex.OP1/18 to Ex.OP1/20); photocopy of detail of security refund, (Ex.OP1/9); photocopy of cheque, (Ex.OP1/10); photocopy of certificate, (Ex.OP1/11); photocopy of complaint, (Ex.OP1/14); photocopies of rectify record, (Ex.OP1/15 to Ex.OP1/17); photocopy of rate list, (Ex.OP1/21) and closed the evidence.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

14. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt of complaints by opposite parties is admitted. Opposite parties have tried to justify the delay in attending the complaints on the ground that some constructions work was going on, but there is no evidence to prove this fact. Even otherwise, delay in attending the complaints is admitted. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties stands proved. Opposite parties have also pleaded that rebate of Rs.225/- has been given to the complainant. This fact further supports the version of the complainant regarding deficiency in services, otherwise, opposite parties were not to give any rebate or discount.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt, (Ex.C14) proves that opposite parties charged Rs.3000/-, but no installation fee or other charges were mentioned in the receipt. Therefore, opposite parties are also not justified to claim any installation charges etc. They have also issued bill dated 3.11.2017, (Ex.C20) even after disconnection of the connection. This fact further shows deficiency in services on their part. Therefore, the complaint be accepted in terms of prayer reliefs.

    To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon Har Kishan Lal Kamboj vs. G.M Telephones, Ferozepur, 2003(1) JRC 603.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that he has got the connection permanently disconnected. Therefore, relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' came to an end. Although, the complainant has prayed for the refund of security amount of Rs.3000/-. Opposite parties have also placed on record cheque, (Ex.OP1/10) and copy of letter, (Ex.OP1/8) to reveal that the complainant has refused to receive cheque dated 17.2.2018 of Rs.2111/-. The complaint was filed on 27.4.2018 i.e. after refusal to receive the cheque. This fact is also not mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. He has concealed the material facts. This fact also dis-entitles him from any relief.

17. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that of-course, two complaints were received, but same were duly attended. The delay was duly due to reason that cables were required to be shifted due to construction of highway. There was not willful and intentional negligence on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, no deficiency in services can be attributed on their part only for delay in attending the complaints. Moreover they have already given discount of Rs.225/- for this inconvenience. From all angles, the complaint is without merits and be dismissed.

18. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant.

19. Although, the complainant has revealed the history from the start of taking connection and then getting it transferred in his name from the name of his wife, but for sake of convenience, matter is being examined in the light of reliefs claimed by him.

20. As per complainant himself, he has got the connection disconnected in the month of September 2017. This complaint was filed on 27.4.2018. Therefore, on the date of filing of complaint, relationship of 'consumer' and 'service provider' between parties already came to an end. The complainant has prayed for refund of security amount of Rs.3000/-. Opposite parties have produced on record copy of cheque dated 17.2.2018, (Ex.OP1/10) and as per opposite parties, the complainant has refused to receive this cheque. Copy of letter, (Ex.OP1/8) also proves that he has refused to receive cheque. This fact was also mentioned by opposite parties in their written version. Thereafter the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit, (Ex.C6). In this affidavit, he has not denied this version of opposite parties. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is to be accepted that opposite parties issued cheque of Rs.2111/- and complainant has refund to receive it.

21. The complainant has claimed for refund of bills paid in excess, but his averment is without any evidence. No amount paid in excess is mentioned. As such, this claim is uncertain, indefinite, vague. Moreover opposite parties have already adjusted a sum of Rs.225/- on account of delay in attending the complaints.

22. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.90,000/- for harassment and botheration, but at the cost of repetition, there is again no evidence for this harassment and botheration. As per complainant, he made complaints on 17.2.2017 and 23.2.2017, although, he has alleged that these complaints were not attended. Opposite parties have produced on record rectify record, (Ex.OP1/15 to Ex.OP1/17) to prove that the complaints of the complainant were duly attended. Therefore, conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties.

23. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is without merits and stands dismissed.

24. The complainant is at liberty to collect the cheque from opposite parties.

25. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

26. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    21-05-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member