BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

(Muvattupuzha Camp Sitting)

 Date of filing :  19.12.2016

                                                                                            Date of Order : 29.05.2018

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                 Member,

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                      Member.

                            CC.No.691/2016

                                   Between       

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant Sri.P.M Baby is a subscriber to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and he was provided with Land Pone Number 0484-2640393 under the Annual Plan for which the annual rent was fixed at Rs.600/-.  After a certain period the above plan was changed to ordinary plan and the complainant was asked to pay the telephone charges in accordance with the Ordinary Plan.  The case of the complainant is that the change over to the ordinary plan was illegal, incorrect and not justifiable.  The complainant retained the land connection for his own reasons and while so on 09.11.2016 at 8.30 p.m the complainant happened to hear from Cochin FM Akashavani that the phone connection under Annual Plan 600 was still available to one Mammu Kaniyan residing at Cherai and the said information was received by Adv.D.B. Binu from the PRO, BSNL, Ernakulam and it was revealed to the listeners of Kochi FM in the programme by name “Niyama Vedi – Answers to questions regarding”.  The complainant contended that he is also entitled to retain and get the benefit of the Annual Plan 600.  The complainant sought for a direction of this Forum to the opposite parties to provide the very same facilities of Annual Plan 600 and to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum and the opposite parties approached before this Forum through their Counsel.  The opposite parties filed their version.  Since the version was filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the version was not accepted.
3. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the monetary loss or mental agony, if any, suffered by the complainant?

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and Exbt.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The opposite parties adduced oral evidence through their witness DW1 and furnished their proof affidavit and the documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt.B1 to B3.
5. Both parties were heard on 14.05.2018.
6. Issue No.(i)

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant was provided with a Land phone connection with telephone connection under Annual Plan 600 and Exbt.A1 telephone bill furnished by the complainant shows that the phone number allotted to the complainant is 0484-2640393 and the Bill No. and date are noted as 206782516 and 05.04.2012.  The bill period is 01.02.2012 to 31.03.2012.  The above bill for Rs.39.54 was issued on the basis of individual calls made by the complainant. The complainant as PW1 deposed before the Forum that he had taken the telephone connection on 05.12.2011, that the Annual Plan 600 was provided to him upto 04.12.2013 that the change over from Annual Plan 600 to general plan was made known to him before the expiry of the Annual Plan 600 period when he approached the opposite party to remit the telephone charges, that he retained telephone connection on his own will.  The complainant is aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties in changing over of the special Annual Plan 600 to normal monthly telephone tariff and hence filed this complaint.  We find that this complaint is filed on 19.12.2016.  Special Annual plan 600 was provided to the complainant upto 04.12.2013 and this complaint is filed beyond the limitation period of 2 years from 04.12.2013, hence this complaint is barred by limitation period of 2 years as envisaged in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The 1^st issue is thus decided against the complainant.

7. Issue No. (ii)

The complainant has no case that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant deposed before the Forum as PW1 that the BSNL had provided their services and repairs promptly (see page 3 of the Affidavit).  Hence we find that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In the proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties it is stated that the Land Phone connection was provided to the complainant under Annual Plan 600 Rural on getting an application from the complainant, that the above plan was offered to the customers in rural area, that the telephone tariff is decided by BSNL corporate office in New Delhi and regulated by the Statutory body Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) based on the exchange capacity, location of the customer, market influence, expenses incurred for maintenance of the connection etc.  The BSNL management modified the 600 Annual Rent Plan in 2013 and the Annual Plan 600 Rural was withdrawn by corporate office, New Delhi vide Exbt.B1 and B2 order No.3-11/2009 R &C dated 05.04.2013 as per which all customers under Annual Plan 600 Rural will be migrated to General Plan opted by the customer on expiry of the committed period. The complainant opted the general plan and this complaint is filed with the request to reinstall the former ‘Special Annual Plan 600’.  Withdrawal of an Annual Plan cannot be considered as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and the complainant as PW1 deposed before this Forum that the ‘Special Annual Plan 600’ is still provided to one Mammu Kaniyar, that the said information was given through Kochi F.M by Sri.D.B.Binu as received from PRO of BSNL.  Thus it is evident that the above information was not directly given by an official of BSNL. Moreover, the changeover of ‘Special Annual Plan 600’ to General plan is a policy decision taken by BSNL and not related to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to give a direction in matters relating to policy matters of BSNL.  The issue is thus decided against the complainant.

8. Issue No. (iii)

Having found issue No. (i) and (ii) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue No. (iii). 

In the result, we find that this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of May 2018.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                                                            Forwarded by order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

                                                          APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:             

Depositions        :

          PW1 :         Baby

          DW1 :         K.M.Molly

Date of Despatch        :

          By Hand    :

          By Post      :

                                        …................