District Consumer Distputes Redressal Forum, Mans a. Complaint No.151/6.9.2007 Decided on : 9.4.2008. Gurmail Singh son Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of village Jawaharke Tehsil and District, Mans a. .....Complainant. Versus S.D.O. Bharat Sanchar Nagar Lmited Mans a through S.D.O.,BSNL,Mansa . .......Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present Sh. Gurpiar Singh, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Pardeep Singla, Advocate for OP. Order: Gurmail Singh(hereinafter called as complainant) has filed this Complaint against SDO,BSNL, Mans a(hereinafter called as opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the OP to refund the amount of rent charged in excess from him and also pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of the Op with regard to telephone connection number 01652-234960 installed at his house at village Jawaharke. It is alleged that the rent chargeable on rural connections is Rs.100/- per month and a rebate of 100 free calls is available on such telephones but the OP has been charging bi-monthly rent of Rs.240/- from him and also no free calls facility was given : 2 : to him. The op thus was deficient in service and liable to refund the excess amount of rent recovered from him. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by the op, it is contended that the telephone connection of the complainant has been opted by him under Sulabh Scheme regarding which monthly rent of Rs.120/- is chargeable where the capacity of the exchange is above 30000 lines. The capacity of Mans a exchange from where connection was given to the complainant is stated to be above 30000 lines. No free calls facility is available on the connections under Sulabh Scheme. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service by the op towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been accordingly made. Both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the ld counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact that the telephone of the complainant was opted under Sulabh Scheme and only incoming facility is available on such telephone. Thus the question of any free calls available to the complainant on his telephone does not arise. The Op has placed on record exhibit OP-1 monthly rental chargeable for B-Phone-WLL(F) effective from 1.1.2006 which indicates that under Sulabh Scheme monthly rental of telephone connections where the exchange capacity is above 30000 lines is Rs.120/-. In the bill exhibit C-2 produced by the complainant, the rent of Rs.240/- for two months has : 3 : been charged which is perfectly in accordance with above tariff mentioned in exhibit OP-1. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the op towards complainant. As a consequence of the forgoing reasons, the complaint is felt to be devoid of any merits and as such, the same is dismissed. Leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost under the rules and file be consigned to record. Sarat Chander, S.M.S.Mahil, Member President
