DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.114/08.08.2008 Decided on : 29.04.2009 Sh.Bharpur Singh, Advocate S/o Sh.Hamir Singh, resident of New Court Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bathinda. 2.S.D.O., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Darshan Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Bharpur Singh son of Sh.Hamir Singh, a resident of Mansa, against the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its General Manager at Bathinda and S.D.O. at Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for giving direction to refund the amount received in excess alongwith interest and amount of security deposited by him along with interest at the rate of 18 percent and for payment of damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is described as Contd.......2 : 2 : under: 2. The complainant has got installed land line telephone, in his house, bearing Connection No.227134, and has been regularly paying amount of bills, drawn on him, as such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties, qua the said telephone connection. The opposite parties have served all the bills since 2007 claiming charges for providing facility of 'Punjab Free Service' scheme launched by them, although the complainant has never applied for such facility. He filed an application on 22.7.2008 before the Opposite Party No.2, who gave his remarks thereon, that no such facility, has been availed by the complainant, which may be discontinued. Inspite of the same, the opposite parties continued to raise demand of the said facility, in subsequent bills, as such, he is entitled, to refund of entire amount deposited by him, alongwith interest at the rate stated above. The telephone connection installed in the house of the complainant remained out of order for 20 days in a month and opposite parties, have always failed to rectify the defect therein in time at the earliest. Since the complainant is an advocate by profession in court complex, Mansa, as such, his profession is adversely affected, if his telephone goes out of order, because of which he has suffered mental and physical harassment, as opposite parties are claiming charges despite of non functioning of his telephone. The opposite parties were not entitled, to recover any amount for the period of defect in his telephone, but they have recovered huge amount, which they are liable to refund. The complainant has also secured broadband facility from the opposite parties on his telephone, but because the same frequently goes out of order, he could not avail the said facility, to his satisfaction. The complainant also got the said facility disconnected, but the opposite parties have not refunded the amount of security deposited by him for the same, hence the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, Opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the Contd........3 : 3 : complainant, is not their 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint, is not maintainable; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant, has concealed material facts, from the knowledge of this Forum and has not approached this Forum with clean hands, as such, his complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with costs. On merits, the factum of installation of land line telephone connection in the premises of the complainant, is admitted, but it is submitted that he has secured STD facility at the time of installation of his telephone on 16.4.2007 and as and when complainant reported defect in his telephone, the same was rectified forthwith. It is admitted that 'Punjab Free call facility' was secured by the complainant from 4.6.2008 to 31.7.2008 , but the same could not be discontinued due to defect in his telephone. It is submitted that as per record available, no amount has been deposited, by the complainant, on account of security, but if the complainant produces any receipt of the payment thereof, it may be considered by the opposite parties. It is also denied that any extra amount, has been claimed from the complainant. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit and copies of documents Ext. C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has also tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence, on their behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh.Darshan Sharma, Advocate, has, at the out set, reiterated all the allegations made in the Contd........4 : 4 : complaint and argued that not even a single document, has been produced, by the opposite parties, to establish that complainant ever applied for 'Punjab Free call facility' launched by them, as such, charging of amount on that score is illegal. The learned counsel, has drawn our attention, to telephone bills wherein amount, has been demanded by the opposite parties, on account of 'facilities' provided to the complainant on his telephone. Learned counsel further submitted that after withdrawal of broadband facility, the opposite parties, have not refunded the amount of security deposited by the complainant in the sum of Rs.500/- and they have charged amount, even for the period during which his telephone remained out of order, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because of which complainant has suffered in his profession and for which they are liable to pay him damages, as prayed for in the instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that composite amount has been charged from the complainant on account of other facilities secured by him and relief prayed for by him regarding the period for which his telephone remained out of order, is vague, as he has not disclosed the period for which his telephone remained out of order, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on account of which complainant may seek compensation from them. Learned counsel further argued that broadband facility secured by the complainant, has been disconnected on 1.10.2007 and thereafter opposite parties, have not charged any amount from him and they are willing to refund the amount of security deposited by him, in the sum of Rs.500/-, provided he deposits the receipt. The learned counsel, has also drawn our attention to copies of documents placed on record, to the effect that grievance of the complainant, was redressed as and when he made written complaint and Contd........5 : 5 : has further argued that instant complaint filed by the complainant, is abuse of process of court and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. As stated above, the factum of installation of telephone connection in the name of the complainant and deposit of amount of Rs.500/-, is not denied, by the opposite parties, although their counsel has submitted that the same amount was in the shape of advance. However, in the written version, it is submitted that opposite parties are willing to pay the amount on account of security for providing him broadband facility on his telephone. They have also not produced any proof showing refund of the said amount to the complainant. They are liable to refund the same from the date of discontinuation of the facility till date of paymentt. As mentioned in the copies of bills Ext.C-10 to C-14, tendered in evidence by the complainant, demand of different amounts, has been raised on account of facilities provided on the telephone of the complainant. He has not denied that STD facility was also secured by him. The opposite parties have written specifically in the written version that complainant, has secured STD facility from the date of installation of the telephone. This fact is otherwise proved by the affidavit of Sh.Mohinder Pal DET (Legal) Ext.OP-3 and details of telephone calls made by the complainant Ext.OP-2 and OP-5. The complainant has not disclosed the exact amount deposited by him on account of 'Punjab Free Call facility'. He has also not given details of the period for which his telephone remained out of order and amount which he deposited for the said period, in the complaint. In the absence of any such proof, we are unable to grant him any relief on these counts. The careful perusal of bills of call, tendered in evidence by the opposite parties Ext.OP-1 and OP-5 also reveals that no amount has been charged from the complainant for 'Punjab Free Calls facility'. In the copy of application Ext.C-6, the opposite parties have reported that no 'Punjab Free Call facility' has been made available to the complainant which may be discontinued, but in the application he has himself submitted that Contd........6 : 6 : he availed said facility and has been regularly making payment of the amount demanded against the same. As such, plea of the complainant regarding non availing of said facility, is not acceptable because of which it may be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they may be burdened with compensation. The opposite parties have submitted that they have discontinued the broadband facility w.e.f. 1.10.2007 as per the instructions of the complainant. In the copies of the bill Ext.C-10 to C-12, no amount has been demanded from the complainant as broadband charges. The bill Ext.C-13 pertains to the period 1.10.2007 to 31.10.2007. Even in this bill, no amount has been charged on account of broadband facility and complainant has not placed on record that after discontinuation of the broadband facility, any amount was paid by him for the same to the opposite parties. 9. However, non refund of the amount of security deposited by the complainant after discontinuation of the broadband facility, is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ,and they are liable, to refund the said amount along with interest from the date of its disconnection i.e. 1.10.2007. The record of deposit of amount on account of security by the complainant is presumed to be in possession of the opposite parties, as such, non refund of the amount for want of non production of receipt by the complainant, cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, he is entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from 1.10.2007 till date of payment and to pay him equal amount on account of costs for the amount spent by him, for filing the instant complaint. Contd........7 : 7 : The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 11. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 29.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
