KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.507/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 14.12.2021

(Against the Order in C.C.No.691/2016 of CDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(Party in person)

VS.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Maya R. Mani)

JUDGMENT

SRI. RANJITH  R. : MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint C.C.No.691/2016 dated 29.05.2018, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short District Commission) the complainant has come up in appeal.  The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          2.       The appellant/complainant had filed the complaint in the following circumstances:

          The complainant is the subscriber of a BSNL land phone number 0484-2640393.  The same was provided to him on 05.12.2011 under Annual Plan 600 Rural on his application.  Within few years the above plan was changed to ordinary plan by the BSNL, unilaterally, and he was forced to pay higher monthly charges under the present plan.  While so on 19.11.2016 the complainant happened to hear from the Cochin FM Akashavani, that phone connection under Annual Plan 600 was still in existence and that it was made available to one Mr. Mamu Kaniyan of Chennai.  This information was passed over by the PRO of BSNL.  The complainant contended that he was also entitled to get the benefit under Annual Plan 600, instead of ordinary plan, as the Annual Plan 600 was still in existence.  Therefore he filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to provide him with the facilities of Annual Plan 600.  He also claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by him.

          3.       The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance upon notice.  Opposite parties though filed version, was not accepted by the District Commission as it was filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice.

          4.       The evidence consists of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exhibit A1 and A2.  The authorised representative of the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and their documents were marked Exhibits B1 to B3.

          5.       The District Commission on the basis of contentions of the parties and evidence on record found that the cause of action for the complaint arose on 04.12.2013 the date on which the Annual Plan 600 was Stopped and the complainant’s plan was changed to ordinary plan.   Hence the complaint filed on 19.2.2016 was barred by limitation as envisaged in section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The District Commission also found that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The District Commission on the basis of these findings dismissed the complaint.  It is aggrieved by the said order, that the complainant has filed this appeal.

          6.       According to the complainant who was present in person, the BLNL on 04.12.2013 unilaterally stopped the Annual Plan 600 Rural for which the annual rent was only Rs.600/-.  He was a subscriber of Annual Plan 600 Rural from 05.12.2011 onwards.  Since the annual plan was stopped he was forced to migrate to General 110 Rural with effect from 04.12.2013.  While so on 09.11.2016 the complainant heard in the Kochi FM Akashavani that the land phone connection under Annual Plan 600 Rural was still in existence and it was given to one Mamu Kaniyan of Chennai and that the above information was given by PRO of BSNL.  In this circumstance the complainant claimed that he was also entitled to get land phone under Annual Plan 600 Rural.  Since the complainant got the information about the existence of Annual Plan 600 only on 09.11.2016 the date on which this fact was communicated through radio programme, the cause of action arose only from that day and complaint filed on 19.12.2016 was within the limitation period.  Hence the finding of the District Commission, that the complaint was barred by limitation is wrong and erroneous and thus prays for setting aside the order of the District Commission and prays to allow the complaint.

          7.       The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the complaint was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation.  Moreover there is not even an allegation of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  The complainant had taken telephone connection under Annual Plan 600 Rural on 05.12.2011.  This plan was withdrawn with effect from 05.04.2013 which was done as per the policy decision of BSNL.  As per this order all customers under Annual Plan 600 had to either migrate to General Plan or any suitable plan opted by the customer, on expiry of committed period.  The complainant’s committed period was upto 04.12.2013.  Although the decision to stop the Annual Plan 600 was taken on 05.04.2013, the complainant was permitted to continue with his old plan till 04.12.2013.  Since the complainant had not opted any other plan, the complainant’s plan was changed to General FMC 110 Rural with effect from 04.12.2013 i.e., after expiry of the committed period of the existing plan.  This was done with prior intimation to the complainant.  Complainant had migrated to ordinary plan on 04.12.2013.  If he had any grievance against change of plan, he should have filed a complaint within the limitation period.  Here the complainant chose to file the complaint only in December 2016 before the District Commission.   Since the complaint was filed after the limitation period, which is two years as per the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint was not maintainable, as it was barred by limitation.  The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of the complainant that he knew about the fact that the Annual Plan 600 was still in existence through a radio programme aired through Akashavani FM on 09.11.2016 and that fresh cause of action arose from 09.11.2016 was absolutely false and incorrect.  The PRO, BSNL never informed anybody including any officer of AIR Kochi FM Station about the Annual Plan 600 Rural is in existence.  The learned counsel thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

          8.       We have heard the respective parties elaborately.  We have gone through the records of the case in detail.  We also heard the audio of the CD produced by the appellant.  It is not in dispute that the complainant was provided with a land phone connection under Annual Plan 600 Rural on 05.12.2011.  It is also not disputed that the complainant was billed under the Annual Plan 600 Rural till 04.12.2013.  The complainant as PW1 has deposed that he knew that this plan was changed from Annual Plan 600 Rural to General Plan with effect from 04.12.2013.  He has also admitted that he retained the telephone connection and migrated to General Plan with effect from 04.12.2013 on his own will.  He had no grievance at that point of time or thereafter.  He continued to pay the bills of his land line connection thereafter.  Perusing Exhibits B1 and B2 the BSNL Corporate Office order dated 05.04.2013 and clarification order respectively, shows that all customers under the Annual Plan 600 Rural had to migrate to General Plan or to a suitable plan opted by the customer, on expiry of the committed period.  The complainant’s committed period expired on 04.12.2013.  Since the complainant had not opted for any other plan, his plan was changed to General FMC 110 Rural with effect from 04.12.2013.  If the complainant was aggrieved with the unilateral change of plan, he should have filed the complaint within the time frame.  He has not done so.  The complainant’s definite case is that the Annual Plan 600 Rural is still in existence and that he came to know about this fact only on 19.11.2016 the date on which he heard this through a radio programme.  It is his case that in the radio programme the PRO of BSNL had stated that Annual Plan 600 was still in existence and all customers who had taken connection prior to the change of plan could continue to enjoy the same.  On hearing the audio clip of the radio programme broadcasted on 09.11.2016, we note that the PRO of BSNL never stated that Annual Plan 600 Rural was still in existence.  What is stated by PRO is that the Annual Plan 600 Rural will be made available to customers till the expiry of the committed period.  Admittedly the complainant’s committed period of Annual Plan 600 Rural expired as early as on 04.12.2013.  Therefore the cause of action to file the complaint arose on 04.12.2013 and the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within two years from 04.12.2013.  He had not done so.  Therefore, as found by the District Commission, the complaint filed on 19.12.2016 was a time barred complaint.

          9.       In the light of the above we are of the view that order of the District Commission dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation, does not call for any interference by this commission.  There is no merit in this appeal.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

SL