Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/314

Karmjit Singh S/o Harchand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL GM - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G A Kumar

19 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/14/314 of 10.11.2014 Decided on: 19.05.2015 Karamjit Singh S/o Harchand Singh VPO Sidhuwal, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus General Manager B.S.N.L. GPO-Complex, Patiala. …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.G.A.Kumar , Advocate For Op : Smt.Anuradha Shukla,Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT 1. It is the case of the complainant that he was a subscriber of telephone No.2625241 and the same had been continuing faulty for the last so many days. Accordingly the complainant on account of the deficiency in service as also on account of the bills being inflated, vide application dated 28.3.2014, received by the Op vide No.370 on 28.3.2014 requested, for the permanent discontinuation of the telephone connection as also for the refund of the security . The Op disconnected the telephone connection immediately but failed to refund the security. Having awaited for a period of two months, the complainant sent the application-cum-notice dated 30.5.2014, received by the Op vide receipt No.818 dated 30.5.2014, with a request to refund the security amount with interest within fortnight failing which it was brought to the notice of the Op that the matter will be taken up with the higher authority including the court of law, but to no effect. 2. Despite the reminder-cum-notice dated 30.5.2014 and the passing of a period of one month thereafter, the op failed to respond so as to refund the security. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to refund the security with interest @12% per annum w.e.f.28.3.2014; to award the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/-; the counsel’s fee to the tune of Rs.5000/-; compensation on account of the harassment to the tune of Rs.5000/- and punitive damages to the tune of Rs.5000/-. 3. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia ; that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the Op; that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless to have been brought to the harassment of the Op and that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied by the Op that the telephone connection of the complainant had been working faulty for the last so many days. The complainant had not deposited the bill dated 31.12.2013 and 31.1.2014 amounting to Rs.1133/- and therefore, the facility of outgoing calls was barred on 13.2.2014 on account of the non-payment of the bill for Rs.555/- upto 31.12.2013.Thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1140/- on 19.2.2014 and the telephone connection was activated. However, the outgoing facility was again barred because of the non-payment of the bill on 11.4.2014 against the bill issued on 4.3.2014 for the month of February,2014. As per the norms of the department, the incoming calls of the phone of the defaulter are also barred after a gap of 30 days from the date of the barring of the facility of the outgoing calls. Therefore, incoming calls of the telephone number of the complainant were barred on 11.5.2014 and the services of the phone were suspended. The department charged rent from the complainant till 11.5.2014.The total amount outstanding against the complainant for the period 1.2.2014 to 11.5.2014 was Rs.1938/-.After adjusting the security amount of Rs.1845/- a sum of Rs.93/- was still due and recoverable against the complainant. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the initial amount of the security was Rs.3000/- on which an amount of Rs.293/-as interest had accrued and thus the total amount came to Rs.3293/- .Out of the said amount of Rs.3293/-, Rs.1843/- were deducted towards security, Rs.300/-towards installation charges, Rs.15/- towards service tax and Rs.1133/- were adjusted against the outstanding amount of the bills of different dates, detailed as under: Bill Date Amount in Rs. 18.1.2012 105/- 18.1.2003 84 18.7.2002 105 18.9.2001 184 18.9.2002 105 18.11.2001 352 18.11.2002 198 Total 1133 The security amount of Rs.1845/- was adjusted against the amount as shown in the bill dated 12.8.2014 when total outstanding amount of the bill was Rs.1938/- and after adjustment a sum of Rs.93/- is still due and recoverable from the complainant and the Op is entitled to recover the same with interest. Thus, the security of the complainant has been adjusted against the outstanding amount of the bills and there is no question of any refund of the security and ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and his counsel closed the evidence. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sher Singh, JAO(TR) in the office of the Op alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP23 and closed the evidence. 6. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. 7. Ex.C1, is the copy of application dated 28.3.2014 submitted by the complainant before the Op duly endorsed by the Op vide receipt No.370 dated 28.2.2014 with a request to disconnect his telephone No.2625241 permanently and to refund the security amount at the earliest. Ex.C2 is the application dated 30.5.2014 submitted by the complainant with the Op duly endorsed by the Op vide receipt No.818 dated 30.5.2014, having reminded the Op to refund the security amount although on the basis of the application dated 28.3.2014 his telephone No.2625241 had been disconnected permanently. 8. On the other hand, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the initial amount of the security of the complainant was Rs.3000/- on which a sum of Rs.293/- accrued by way of interest and the total amount of security came to Rs.3293/-. Out of the said amount of Rs.3293/- a sum of Rs.1845/- was deducted for security and against the remaining amount of Rs.1448/-, there was made adjustment of Rs.300/-towards installation charges, Rs.15/- towards service tax and Rs.1133/- towards the outstanding amount of the bills of different dates as per the detail given below Bill Date Amount in Rs. 18.1.2012 105/- 18.1.2003 84 18.7.2002 105 18.9.2001 184 18.9.2002 105 18.11.2001 352 18.11.2002 198 1133/- 9. It is further the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant was due to pay a sum of Rs.1938/- as shown in the bill dated 12.8.2014 and after having adjusted the said security amount of Rs.1845/-, the complainant was still due to pay a sum of Rs.93/- which is recoverable with interest from the complainant. 10. In this regard, the Op has produced Ex.OP12, the copy of the letter No.TR/PA/Court case/2012-13 dated 24.1.2015 written by the Accounts Officer (TR) O/O G.M.T.D. BSNL, Patiala to the Sub Divisional Engineer(Legal) giving the complete detail of the initial amount of the security, the interest having accrued thereon, adjustment of the sum of Rs.1845/-towards security and the balance having been adjusted against the outstanding bills. 11. Now the question arises whether the Op was justified in having adjusted the amount of Rs.300/- towards installation charges + Rs.15/- towards service tax and Rs.1133/- towards the arear of the bills dated 18.1.2012 for Rs.105/-, dated 18.1.2003 for Rs.84/-, dated 18.7.2002 for Rs.105/-, dated 18.9.2001 for Rs.184, dated 18.9.2002 for Rs.105, 18.11.2001 for Rs.352/- and dated 18.11.2012 for Rs.198/-. Nothing is shown by the Op as to when the said adjustment for Rs.1448/- was made.We can not allow the Op to deduct Rs.300/- towards the installation charges and Rs.15/-towards service tax because invariably the installation charges are claimed in the Ist bill and the same are not kept pending to be realized from the security deposit at the time of surrendering the connection. No detail of the service tax of Rs.15/- is provided i.e. to which period it pertains. The Op has produced one document,Ex.OP4, which does not speak for itself i.e. to what register it pertains. The items have been described with the headings 7(b) in which the amount of Rs.1845/- has been written, 7(e) in which the amount of Rs.300/- has been written, 7(f) in which the amount of Rs.15/- has been written and 7(g) in which the amount of Rs.1133/- has been written. One can not connect the document,Ex.OP4 with the complainant because neither the name of the complainant has been written nor his telephone number has been given.It is really surprising that the Op had been issuing the bills but no record of the arrear of Rs.105/- in respect of the bill dated 18.1.2002, Rs.84/- in respect of the bill dated 18.1.2003, Rs.105/- in respect of the bill dated 18.7.2002, Rs.184/- in respect of the bill dated 18.9.2001, Rs.105/- in respect of the bill dated 18.9.2002, Rs.352/- in respect of the bill dated 18.11.2001 and Rs.198/- in respect of the bill dated 18.11.2002 was maintained. The complainant can be said to have been taken with a surprise by the Op with the plea taken up by the Op that the amount of Rs.1133/- was adjusted against the security amount of Rs.1448/-, after having kept the security amount of Rs.1845/- intact towards the arrears of the bills of different dates and of different years. Why the Op could not raise the demand of the said arrears of Rs.1133/- in the bill,Ex.OP15 dated 4.4.2014 issued for the period 1.3.2014 to 31.3.2014 after the complainant had submitted the application,Ex.C1 dated 28.3.2014 for the disconnection of his telephone connection permanently or even in the subsequent bill Ex.OP16 dated 4.5.2014 issued for the period 1.4.2014 to 30.4.2014. As a matter of routine the arrears of the previous bills are carried forward in the bill of the current month and in case the arrears as also the amount of the current charges are not paid, the Op is empowered under Rule 473 of the Indian Telegraph Rules,1951 to disconnect the telephone connection and only after the payment of the amount due as also the reconnection fee the connection can be restored. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant had not deposited his bills dated 31.12.2013 and 31.1.2014 for Rs.3133/- and therefore, the outgoing facility was barred on 13.2.2014 on account of non-payment of the bill dated 31.12.2013.Thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1140/- on 19.2.2014 and his number was activated. This plea itself goes to negate the plea of the Op that the amount of Rs.1133/- pertaining to arrear of different bills of different dates was adjusted against the security amount. Similarly, it is the plea taken up by the Op that again the outgoing facility of the complainant was barred due to non- payment of the bill on 11.4.2014 against the bill dated 4.3.2014 issued for the month of February,2014. The incoming calls of the telephone were also barred on 11.5.2014 after a gap of 30days of the barring of the outgoing calls. The total amount outstanding against the complainant for the period 1.2.2014 to 11.5.2014 was Rs.1938/-.The security amount of Rs.1845/- was adjusted against the said amount of Rs.1938/- and still a sum of Rs.93/- is outstanding and is recoverable from the complainant which is recoverable with interest. 12. When the complainant had made a request in writing vide application,Ex.C1 on 28.3.2014 to disconnect his telephone No.2625241 permanently, we fail to understand as to why the bills were being issued on 4.4.2014,Ex.OP15, on 4.5.2014,Ex.OP16 on 4.6.2014,Ex.OP17 on 3.7.2014 Ex.O18 and On 12.8.2014 Ex.OP19. 13. It was submitted by Sh.G.A.Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant that after the submission of the application Ex.C1 dated 28.3.2014, the complainant had not used outgoing call facility of the telephone connection and that is why in the detail of the telephone of the called numbers as given in Ex.OP22, there is no detail of the outgoing calls for the month of April,2014, a fact not denied by the learned counsel for the Op. Therefore, the raising of any bills after 31.3.2014 against the complainant would be without any basis. 14. It was submitted by Sh.G.A.Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant that complainant was due to pay the bills for the months of February and March,2014 and the amount in respect of the said months may be adjusted against the amount of the security. Ex.OP13, is the bill dated 4.2.2014 for the period 1.1.2014 to 31.1.2014 showing the previous balance of Rs.560.82 and an adjustment of Rs.10/- was made. Current charges were claimed for Rs.561.80.The total bill was issued for Rs.1133/-. Ex.OP14 is the bill dated 4.3.2014 showing the previous balance of Rs.1132.62. The bill for current charges was issued for Rs.580.61. Last payment was made for Rs.1140/-.The amount payable vide the bill was shown at Rs.555/-.Ex.OP15 is the bill dated 4.4.2014 showing the previous balance at Rs.554.42. Adjustment of Rs.10/-was made. The current charges bill was issued for Rs.561.80.The total bill payable was issued for Rs.1127/- which was not paid by the complainant as would appear from the bill,Ex.OP16 dated 4.5.2014 issued for the period 1.4.2014 to 30.4.2014.We have examined Ex.OP16 simply for the sake of finding as to whether the complainant had deposited the amount of the bill dated 4.4.2014,Ex.OP15.The Op could not realize the amount of current charges of Rs.561.80, as per bill dated 4.5.2014 no use of the telephone having been shown in the detail of the calls as discussed earlier with reference to Ex.OP22. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Op can adjust the amount of Rs.1126.22, the arrears of the bill dated 4.4.2014 for the period 1.3.2014 to 31.3.2014 towards the security amount. The Op is empowered to adjust the amount of the security towards the charges of the security under Rule 445 of the Indian Telegraph Rules,1951, which interalia provides, “Where the security deposit is paid, any amount due from the subscriber by way of fee or other charges under this rules may be adjusted against the amount so deposited” 15. Thus on the complainant having submitted his application,Ex.C1 before the Op on 28.3.2014, the Op after having adjusted the amount of Rs.1126.22 should have refunded the balance amount of the security i.e. Rs.2166.78(Rs.3293-1126.22=2166.78).We therefore, accept the complaint and direct the Op to refund Rs.2166.76 rounded off to Rs.2167/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till final realization. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-, which is inclusive of the amount of the compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant. The order be complied by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. Pronounced Dated: 19.05.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President