This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant Amit Kumar Roy by filing this complaint submitted that he was a consumer in respect of telephone landline No.033 2564 2934 along with broadband connection but on 21-10-2006 he received an e-mail from Mr. Bhuvaneswar Prasad, DGM (Telecom Revenue), Calcutta Telephones, that telephone bill for October, 2006 was Rs.11,463/- but complainant deposited the said exorbitant bill and requested for proper printed bill.  However, instead of addressing complainant’s grievance Calcutta Telephones arbitrarily disconnected and disrupted his telephone services by barring all outgoing calls, thereafter, complainant visited Calcutta Telephones and also numerous calls made in the customer service care to redress his grievance and to restore telephone connection were of no avail but subsequently, Calcutta Telephones has been raising subsequent bill amounts against his already disconnected and disrupted telephone service without redressing his dispute regarding his bill dispute.  Subsequently Calcutta Telephones went on raising false and fictitious bills against his disconnected telephone services without providing him any copy of the bill and finding no other alternative and for callous attitude of the OP he sent a letter on 26-12-2006 to the Calcutta Telephones stating his grievances etc when Calcutta Telephones served a lawyer’s notice on 24-01-2007 along with non-payment of telephone bills and asking to pay Rs.16,286/- within 21 days on receipt of the notice and threatening him by stating that civil and criminal cases will be started against him but peculiar fact is that in the meantime the telephone authority unjustly debited by Calcutta Telephones from his bank account through ECS system.  Thereafter, complainant went to Chief Accounts Officer of Calcutta Telephones at Barrackpore Office, Mr. S. K. Nath and reported the matter but he refused to pay any heed to that.  Subsequently, Mr. Basu, the Chief Accounts Officer of Calcutta Telephones convinced him to settle the matter to avoid further troubles and a speedy reconnection of broadband and telephone lines.  Pursuant to the settlement, complainant made payment of settlement amount of Rs.2,819/- against telephone bill dated 07-11-2006 and also expressed that Rs.853/- wrongly collected through ECS system would be adjusted in the settlement raised against disconnected telephone and Mr. Basu also collected three blank post dated cheques from the complainant with assurance that encashment shall be worked out.  But even after that complainant did not get the telephone and broadband connection and both Basu and Nath have not given any relief to the complainant and after much harassment and running after different telephone offices and officials, he finally managed to get only the incoming facility in his telephone but outgoings were barred.  Thereafter, incoming facility was given but refused to restore broadband connection and now they are refusing to waive off the false and fictitious bills raised against his disconnected telephone, fictitious bills raised against his disconnected telephone and lastly the telephone authority sent last bill on 02-08-2012 and in the above circumstances, complainant being harassed and deceived by the OP has prayed for redressal and fact remains in the month of May, 2012 complainant surrender his landline including broadband connection and prayed for refund of the security deposit of INR 3000 and other charges but OP did not pay any heed and for which complainant has appeared for redressal.

          On the contrary, OP by filing written version submitted that the above complaint is barred by limitation, present complaint is not maintainable and complainant intentionally after suppressing material facts to obtain a wrongful gain has filed the instant case and so the same is not maintainable.

          Further it is submitted by the OP that complainant obtained a landline telephone connection installed on 21-09-1998 at his address at P-14, Tagore Park, R.N. Tagore Road, Belghoria, Pin – 700 056 being telephone no.033 2564 2934 and he was using the same without any interruption and/or objection in any manner whatsoever by paying bills raised by the department as per reading generated in the meter as per electronic system so device.  Subsequently on 24-06-2005, the complainant also obtained a broad band connection in the said telephone, after that though bill was issued from bill dated 10-08-2005 to 07-09-2006 for landline connection but due to technical difficulties, broad band charges has not been included therein.  In the bill dated 07-10-2006 for Rs.11,463, broad band usages charges for the period from 24-06-2005 to 30-09-2006 has been included at a time along with Rs.10,323-63 and on receipt of the complaint, the said telephone bill was scrutinized in detail and no defect was detected in the bill but due to non-payment of the said bill after giving telephonic message as per telephone rules, the temporarily disconnection order was made on 28-11-2006 but it was actually executed on 19-12-2006.  In the meantime the subsequent bills dated 07-11-2006 amounting to Rs.2,819/- for the period 01-10-2006 to 312-10-2006 and bill dated 07-01-2007 for the amount of Rs.1,151/- for the period 01-11-2006 to 30-11-2006 and bill dated 07-01-2007 for Rs.853/- for the period 01-12-2006 to 31-12-2006 were raised by the department in respect of the complainant’s said telephone with broadband connection usages charges and the department besides several correspondence also issued a notice through the Ld. Advocate on 24-01-2007 following the letter 19-02-2007 for payment of said outstanding bills which was duly received by the complainant but due to non-payment of the bill outgoing facility was withdrawn.  Thereafter, on 25-06-2007 according to the written request of the complainant for instalment payment was allowed by the department and the complainant paid three post dated cheques on 26-05-2007 against bill dated 07-12-2007 amount for Rs.1,151/- against bill dated 01-09-2007 amount for Rs.5,735/- and against bill dated 01-10-2007 for amount Rs.5,728/- was bifurcated against bill dated 07-10-2006 for Rs.11,463/- and apart from that, the complainant also paid the bill dated 07-11-2006 for Rs.2,819/- and the telephone line with broadband connection was restored and complainant used the same and the subscriber has enjoyed the uninterrupted service till surrendering the telephone line i.e. upto 26-05-2012 and on receipt of the request letter of surrender the telephone line by the subscriber, departmental action had been taken by way of disconnection of his line and issue of Closure bill dated 01-07-2012 for Rs.1,846-12 after adjustment of security deposit of Rs.2,280/- and refund order for Rs.1,846/- which was payable to the subscriber by the Department was issued on 14-07-2012.  The subscriber has received the refund order from office.  Subsequently, refund of cheque for Rs.1,846/- has been sent to the subscriber, but the subscriber with the wrongful intention only to harass the department as well as against the OPs before the forum which is not maintainable. 

          It is further submitted that no bill was exorbitant and it was made as per rule of the telephone meter fixed with the said line and against the complaint of the complainant the meter was verified but no defect was detected in the said meter and bill.  It is further submitted that telephone landline or broadband connection for non-payment of charges was disconnected but subsequently charges as per telephone rules was submitted for the disconnected period.  So, in the above circumstances, OP has prayed for dismissal of the case claiming that entire case is false and fabricated.

Decision with Reasons

On indepth study of the complaint including written version and also considering the entire materials on record and further payment of bills by the complainant we have gathered no doubt complainant paid the bills subsequently and it is fact that though for non-payment of bill if disconnection of any telephone line is made in that case rental charges must be made but complainant did not forthwith submitted it but truth is that complainant ultimately surrender the said telephone line along with broadband connection in the month of May, 2012 and OP has not made any such claim for payment of any charges for the said telephone bill or broadband line after May, 2012 but only grievance of the complainant is that the bill sent by the OP on 21-10-2006 for a sum of Rs.11,463/- was exorbitant but after considering the entire materials and the bills we have gathered that it was a bill for back period when broadband was given to the complainant but broadband charges was not assessed in the previous bills and subsequently for one year broadband charges of Rs.10,326-66 was included in the bill dated 07-10-2006 along with rental charges and other charges for the telephone bill and so the amount of the bill was Rs.11,463/-.  In this regard it is to be mentioned that complainant has not denied the fact that complainant used the broadband on and from 24-06-2005.  Further it is found from the certain letter of the complainant that complainant surrendered the broadband line including telephone in the month of May, 2012 then it is clear that since 24-06-2005 upto May, 2014 complainant used the broadband connection at the same time the said telephone since 21-09-1998 and upto May, 2012.  Fact remains for some period broadband connection and the telephone connection was not in existence as it was disconnected for non-payment of the bill so, during that period complainant was bound to pay rental charges and that was rightly assessed by the OP but considering the whole fact and materials we have gathered that complainant deposited security amount of Rs.3,000/- at the time of taking telephone in the year 1998 but OP has tried to convince that they have already refunded Rs.1,846/- after adjusting certain amount of bill which was not paid by the complainant and thus refund amount is Rs.1,846/- that means Rs.2280/- has been deducted as security deposit because complainant did not pay that amount as telephone charges for the period till the period of disconnection made on 26-05-2012.  But after considering the entire bill it is found that the complainant has failed to show that up to 26-05-2012 he cleared all the bills so the deduction of Rs.2,280/- from the total security deposit of Rs.3,000/- is found no doubt reasonable but the Chief Account Officer is also proved a liar in view of the fact OP has failed to prove  and to show that they sent a cheque of Rs.1,846/- to the complainant on 14-07-2012 and not even up to date though OP’s Ld. Lawyer submitted that cheque of Rs.1,846/- has been handed over but in this regard the Chief Account Officers of Telephone Revenue is submitting false report in all the case for surrendering the telephone and broadband line and in this contest we are confirmed that in this case the dishonest Chief Account Officer (TR) has falsely submitted that balance amount of security deposit that is Rs.1,846/- had been sent to the complainant but such plea is false and fabricated and on previous occasions also such plea was taken and no doubt he must have to learn first to tell a truth and, thereafter, he shall take the chair of the Chief Account Officer Telephone Revenue to submit report. In fact, there is no balance sheet of account in respect of the consumers who have already surrendered their telephone lines but handling many complaint we have come to learn that OPs are getting benefit and interest of the amount but OPs are not distributing the amount to the customers who have surrender their broadband and telephone line and it is no doubt an unfair trade practice of telephone Chief Account Officer TR.  Fact remains such a business is no doubt an unfair trade practice and for that CBI enquiry in telephone department is must and to take such immediate action against them for such sort of illegal attitude and no doubt higher authorities are also dishonest, corrupted even they are holding their posts and are submitting false record before the Forum or Court and Forum is not in a mood to take any action against that authority though OPs are misusing the money for the customers but very recently Jean Tirello Bobel Laureate has observed that stringent step should be taken against bank insurance and other government companies who are handing the public money and if it is not taken in that case public money shall be misused.  This is not the first case of the telephone department but we are of view that the telephone department is not refunding the security deposits of consumers who have surrender the telephone line or broadband connection and in fact so many consumers are being harassed by the Chief Account Officer, TR and ultimately the consumers are compelled to file this complaint that means the Chief Account Officer is dishonest, corrupted and has no moral value and in fact, he has been withholding huge public money by getting interest of the said money which is being enjoyed by the telephone department BSNL.  BSNL authorities general performance in entire West Bengal is very poor customer care is practically wretched and security deposit is not refunded forthwith to consumer and this complaint has proved the fact that this complaint was filed on 07-12-2014 and Chief Account Officer TR is claiming that they already refunded the amount on 14-07-2012 but complainant did not get it within last 2 years and so, compelled to file this complaint and it simply proves that the Chief Account Officer TR is dishonest and has filed a false affidavit that he had already refunded the amount.  Such a Chief Account Officer should be charged for giving false evidence and in this regard a CBI enquiry is highly required to search out how much amount is still detained by the telephone authority and how much interest they have enjoyed on the basis of such undisbursed amount of the customers who have handed over the telephone and broadband connection considering the wretched service of the OPs. 

          In the light of the above observation we are allowing the complaint for harassing the complainant by the OP and for giving a false and fabricated evidence on oath that he had already refunded the amount of Rs.1,846/-.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- against the OPs.

          OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,846/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- for harassing the complainant in such a manner and also for giving false evidence that amount of Rs.1,846/- has been refunded to the complainant and accordingly, OPs are directed to clear the entire decretal amount that is Rs.5,000/- cost plus refund amount of Rs.1,846/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- i.e. total Rs.11,846/- by a bank draft in the name of Amit Kumar Roy within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order penal interest  at the rate200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree.

          Chief Account Officer TR Legal Cell is hereby directed to submit report how much amount is still in the account of the department against the deposit of security amount even after surrender of the telephone line and broadband line by the customers.  Whether there is any separate account for such deposit and how much amount the telephone authority has got as interest on the basis of the said deposited security amount of the depositors and said report shall be submitted before this Forum by the OPs within two months from the date of this order if it is not deposited then the matter shall be referred to higher authority for enquiry even it may be sent A.G. Bengal for enquiry.

          If OP did not comply this order penal action shall be started against them for which they should be liable.