BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    12^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer a decree for recovery of Rs.2,500/- towards installation/deposit, 9000 towards router for getting the BSNL service, apart from reverting the full bill amount of 6500 and compensation of Rs.1 lacs along with interest @ 18% p.a since 1.4.2012 till date with annual increment in favour of the complainant for the harassment over the years, extra charges billed and deficiency in service and cost towards court and such other reliefs.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

OP is Telecommunication Department which has the business of providing telecom services and network management.  The complainant has BSNL telephone connection with number 080-26669561 with broadband internet facility.  The complainant has come across many issues from very beginning of BSNL connection.  The complainant has logged many complaints since the beginning and now that the service is denied to him and he is forced to change his service provider, he has decided to file a consumer case for harassment and service deficiency for all over the years.  That it is very common for the BSNL customers to not get the service done on time and it has happened to complainant on several occasion, he has decided to mention 3 biggest issues and would seek compensation for the deficiency in service in these cases.  That the complainant has shifted his house in April 2012 and requested for shift of BSNL connection to his new address.  The complainant had given change of address request to the nearest BSNL office on 25^th April and in spite of request, e-mails and visit to exchange on several occasions the connection was moved by 4^th June.  Apart from the deficiency in service, complainant was charged full bill for all this period.  That since the time the complainant has shifted to new house even though complainant was subscribed for 4mbps connection and free calls for 200 minutes but he was getting only 2mbps and the phone was never working.  And even after giving so many complaint on OP portal, OP had never taken any action or tried to resolve the issue and finally after giving a written complaint to Depart of Telecommunication (DOT).  OP accepted their mistake and gave following response on November 18, 2014 as “bb plan ul 1425 is wrongly selected on PAN India basis instead of Bangalore by oversight.  Error is now corrected and speed can be tested only on 01.12.2014 as sub is in ul bb plan compensation is technically not feasible and regretted.  Sorry for the inconvenience caused”.  That the complainant’s phone is dead since 6^th November 2014.  The complainant has given 3 written complaints in OP portal and went personally to the exchange but there was no action taken and all the three complaints were closed without taking any action.  The complainant has raised another complaint on their portal seeking compensation for denial of service and harassment but till now there is no action is taken on that and the status of the complaint is still open on 19^th April 2015.  Now even without fixing the issue complainant has got accumulated bill of 6500 by now.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for seeking relief.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

That OP is a Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., under the Ministry of communications, Government of India enterprise and has been incorporated as Public Sector Corporation and named as above and is doing sovereign function to the public at large with the main object of providing telecommunication facility.  That the claims against the OP is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and same is liable to be dismissed ab initio.  The claim is speculative, bereft or merits, lacks bonafide and requires to be dismissed.  The prayers made in the complaint under different heads are incompatible and inept.

That the complainant is a subscriber under OP having telephone bearing No.26669561, in addition to that complainant was provided with Broadband connection.  That the complainant sought for shifting of telephone and represented the OP on 24.04.2012.  Due to the CDR margin period order for shifting issue on 10.05.2012 and completed on 04^th June 2012 and bill is charged on prorate basis and no charges claimed during shifting period.  That due to wrong selection of plan by the complainant (COMBO    ULD 1350 PAN INDIA (4MB/512 up to 20 GB-UL) instead of BBG ULD COMBO 1350 BANGALORE (4MB/512 UP TO 30 GB), subscriber was getting low speed i.e., 512 after 20 GB instead of 30 GB.  After verifying the subscriber complaint on 17.11.2014 and plan was changed on 18.11.2014.  Hence allegation against the OP regarding not attending the complaint without cogent evidence has no legal relevancy.  That the docket shows complaint and attending the complaint.  That the telephone was disconnected on 16.01.2015 for non-payment of dues.

That as there was no broadband usage found in the month of December 2014, January 2015 and February 2015.  The complainant was entitled for the rebate to the tune of (Rs.1630+Rs.1601+rs.1372) i.e., total Rs.4,603/- and rest of the bill amount complainant is liable to pay.  Docket No.112486760512 was not attended, since telephone was under disconnection for non-payment.  That the complainant without paying the bill    approached the Forum with a oblique motive and thereby tried to illegally enrich himself and such act of the complainant is against the rule of law.   

OP has also given para wise reply to the contents of the complaint, which appears to be denial in nature.

For the reasons mentioned above, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. The complainant in support of his case tendered his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  On behalf of OP one Geetha K. Murthy, DGM (SW) tendered her evidence by way of affidavit.  Both the parties have produced certain documents.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:-   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OPs.  In the instant case the complainant has sought for relief of a decree for recovery of Rs.2,500/- towards installation/deposit, Rs.9000/- towards router for getting the BSNL service, apart from reverting the full bill amount of Rs.6500/- and compensation of Rs.1 lakh along with interest @ 18% p.a since 1.4.2012 till date with annual increment may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant for the harassment over the years, extra charges billed and deficiency in service and cost towards court.  The learned counsel for the OP submits that, looking to the relief as sought by the complainant before this Forum this complaint is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA 7687/2004 (General Manager Vs M.Krishna and another) which is respect of the phone bills, apparatus etc., will have to be settled by way of arbitration hence ‘Consumer’ Forum has no jurisdiction.  Further submits that, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on the subordinate courts including High Courts, Tribunals, Forums and National Commission under the article 141 of the constitution.  Since the claim of the complainant is in respect of disputed bills, hence the decision cited by learned counsel for the OP squarely applicable to the present case on hand.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  An option is left open to the complainant to get redressal by invoking the arbitration clause before the arbitrator.  Accordingly we answered point No.1.

8. Point No.2: In view of our findings on point No.1, as the complaint filed complainant is not maintainable, hence this issue does survive for our consideration.

          9. Point No.3: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed holding that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 12^th day of December 2018)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 18.04.2016.

Mr.Deepak Kumar.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 01.02.2016.

Geetha K. Murthy.

Document produced by the Opposite party.

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*