Sri.D.Krishnappa, President speaks for the Forum:-<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts leading to this complaint may be set out as under:-<br /> The complainant had taken a new telephone No.2371550 connection under “Sulakh” scheme of BSNL on 10.03.2004 by paying an initial advance deposit of Rs.820/- pending adjustment of the remaining balance deposit amount on bi-monthly installment to be paid along with bills. As per the rules of the BSNL as printed on page IP-15 of Directory 2005-06, a ‘Rebate’ of Rs.750/- is to be paid to the customer who had himself having his own telephone equipment and internal wiring to his house carried out at his cost. The rebate matter has been taken up by the ‘ADALAT’ of BSNL and ordered to pay Rs.500/- with monthly interest thereon vide PRO’s letter No.MC/06-07/11-1, dated 05.07.2006. The Complainant came to know that the BSNL had offered some ‘GIFT’ to attract the subscriber that the cost of internal wiring will not be charged. But it is a fact that the department has not spent any amount towards the internal wiring to his house as this work had been carried out by the Complainant at his cost prior to this offer extended by the BSNL (through pamphlets). Hence, the Complainant has requested to allow this Complaint.<br /> 2. While contesting the Complaint, Opposite party has contended that Complaint is ‘prima facie’ not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant’s telephone was installed on 10.03.2004 and the present Complaint filed on 09.04.2007 after a period of 2 years is barred by the law of limitation the Complainant has not exhausted all the remedies available to him with the Opposite party. The Complaint is premature one as the Complainant having issued the notice dated 20.03.2007 has not waited for the expiry of notice period for filing the above Complaint. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, as the Complaint is not in the nature of Consumer dispute. Further, Opposite party has submitted that there is no breach of contractual obligations by the Opposite party. The Complainant is given the full rebate as for his eligibility and in accordance with the rules in force. The Complainant is charged Rs.500/- only, as installation charges and the same amount is refunded Rs.750/- rebate is given to those subscribers from whom Rs.800/- is collected as installation charges. But in this case Rs.500/- only is collected and the amount is refunded in full. The refund of installation charges of Rs.750/- mentioned in the Directory is for those subscribers who are charged Rs.800/- and had arranged installation on their own. But with effect from 01.10.2003 the installation charge was revised and reduced to Rs.500/- & consequently in the instant case Rs.500/- was allowed as rebate. The Complainant’s phone was installed on 10.03.2004 and Rs.500/- was charged and the same is refunded in full. Hence, there is no deficiency of service, the Complainant is not eligible to any of the relief sought for in the Complaint, which is liable to be dismissed on facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, he has requested to dismiss the Complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his case, the Complainant has filed his affidavit and produced following documents:-<br /> (1) PRO’s letter No.MC/06-07/II/1, dated 05.01.2007.<br /> (2) BSNL – Rules regarding rebate @ page IP-15 of Directory 2005-06.<br /> (3) PRO’s letter No.MC/06-07/II/1, dated 05.07.2006.<br /> (4) BSNL pamphlet – Advertisement.<br /> (5) My letter dt: 20.03.2007 addressed to GM, BSNL.<br /> (6) DD for Rs.100/- vide No.567616 dated 07.04.2007 of Vijaya Bank, Visweshwaranagar, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 4. On behalf of Opposite party Mr.T.Ramakrishna Rao AGM (S & A) has filed his affidavit and produced following documents.<br /> (1) BSNL Tarrif Circulars (Two sheets) <br /> (2) Bill dated 07.04.2004 showing that the installation charges billed is at Rs.500/- only.<br /> (3) Letter dated 05.07.2006 addressed to the Complainant by P.R.O. office of the G.M.T. Mysore.<br /> (4) Letter dated 20.11.2o006 addressed to the Complainant by P.R.O. office of the GMT, Mysore.<br /> (5) Letter dated 29.12.2006 addressed to Opposite party by the General Secretary A.B.G.P. Mysore-8.<br /> (6) Reply letter dated 05.01.2007 addressed by P.R.O. office of G.M.T. Mysore. <br /> 5. Heard arguments.<br /> 6. In view of these rival contentions of the parties the points that arise for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether Complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant proves that he is a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant further proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in service to him?<br /> 4. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.250/- (internal wiring charges) as prayed in para one of the Complaint?<br /> 5. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.4 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.5 : See the final order<br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Points no.1 & 2:- In the Complaint it is stated that; The Complainant corresponded with the Opposite party through some letter dated on 05.07.2006 & 05.01.2007 and his letter dated 20.03.2007 & 07.04.2007. The Complainant went on pursuing his claim through the above letters thus it gives a continued cause of action. As a matter of fact limitation starts running from the date 05.07.2006. Hence, the Complainant cannot be held as barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Complaint is not at all barred by limitation.<br /> 9. The Complainant has availed service of Opposite party by paying the telephone bill produced by the Opposite party. The Opposite party has thus admitted the Complainant is a consumer as such he is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we answer this point no.2 in the affirmative.<br /> 10. Points No.3 & 4:- The Complainant has produced the telephone Directory for the 2005-06 according to which rebate in installation charges is given as under:<br /> “If the initial wiring including the telephone instrument is provided by subscriber, a rebate of only Rs.750/- is allowed & if only internal wiring is provided by the subscriber, a rebate of Rs.250/- only is allowed”<br /> <br /> But Complainant had taken the connection on 10.03.2004, therefore 2005-06 Directory rules is not applicable to Complainant. Further Complainant produced another document in which the 2nd para of B.S.N.S’s Ad says that:<br /> “-----” <br /> <br /> Therefore, the Complainant would be entitled to the refund of instrument charge and internal charges prevailing in the year 2004. but he has not produced any documents including the telephone directory to show that refund of instrument cost and internal wiring was Rs.750/-. On the contrary the Opposite party has produced a circular No.ITR434 schedule I in which the tariff is given as under: <br /> (I) Cases where Rs.800/- is levied as installation charges. <br /> i) own instrument and internal wiring Rebate Rs.500/- up to 19.08.2001 and Rs.750/- from 20.08.2001**<br /> ii) Internal wiring only Rebate Rs.250/-.<br /> <br /> “Rebate in installation charges for basic services regarding in that 3rd table says:-<br /> <br /> Particular For less than 500 lines For more than 500 lines<br /> Internal wiring only Rs.100/- Rs.250/-<br /> Instrument only Rs.200/- Rs.250/-<br /> Both internal wiring and instrument Rs.300/- Rs.500/-<br /> <br /> Further, the Opposite party has specifically contended that the Complainant has only paid Rs.500/- and that amount is ordered to be paid to him. This has also been brought to the notice of the Complaint through the replies of the Opposite party. The bill produced by the Opposite party also disclosed that the Complainant had only paid Rs.500/-. As against this the Complainant has not produced any documents to prove that he had made deposit of Rs.750/- with the Opposite party. Hence, we find no substance in the claim of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> 11. From the aforesaid reasons Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service by the Opposite party. Hence, we answer points no.3 & 4 in the negative and hereby decide to dismiss the Complaint and we pass the following orders:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />