DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 28 of 2018

 

Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb,

S/O- Late Upendra Ch. Deb,

Resident of Block No.9,, 

Quarter No.IV/13, Malancha Niwash, 

Govt. Quarter Complex,

Kunjaban, P.S.-N.C.C,

Dist.-West Tripura, .…..…...........................Complainant.

 

      -VERSUS-

 

1). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Having its registered office at 

Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,

H.C-Mathur Lane, Janapath,

New Delhi-110001,

Represented by its

Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

 

2). The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 

North Eastern Circle,

Agartala Region, Kaman Chowmohani,

P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura. ….............Opposite parties. 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Gitangshu Sekhar Das,

  Sri Sujit Chakraborty,

  Sri Subhankar Dey,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. : Mrs. Kakali Deb,

  Mrs. Ananya Deb,

  Sri Pranya Deb, 

   Advocates.                                                                                                                                  

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 19 /12/2018

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps. having a post paid mobile connection bearing No.9436125112 since the year 2005-2006. He is holding a  post of General Manager under TIDC and presently working at Agartala. Before institution of this case the Complainant had filed another case in this Forum which was registered as C.C.07/2018 alleging one inflated mobile bill raised by the O.Ps. for an amount Rs.3956/- which according to the Complainant abnormally high in comparison to the previous bills. During the pendency of that case the Complainant received two bills dated 05/02/2018 and 05/03/2018 amounting to Rs.12,021/- and Rs.13,079.43 respectively. In this complaint the Complainant has challenged the bill dated 05/02/2018 alleging that the bill amount is to excessive in comparison to the previous bills. He further alleged that after getting the bill dated 05/02/2018 he sent a letter to O.P. No.2 on 23/02/2018 with a request to provide him detailed break up of the bill and also not to disconnect the mobile connection till disposal of the complaint. But the O.P. without responding to the letter disconnected the mobile connection in spite of a standing order passed by the Forum dated 03/04/2018 in case No. C.C.-07/2018. The Complainant further stated in the complaint that on 08/03/2018 he again wrote a letter to the O.P. No.2 requesting him to provide detailed break up of the mobile bill dated 05/03/2018 amounting to Rs.13,079.43 but the O.P. did not pay any heed to request of the Complainant. The Complainant also stated in his complaint that his mobile phone was again disconnected on 12/04/2018 violating the order of the Forum. He further alleged that due to repeated disconnection of his mobile he suffered a lot. The complainant has thus claimed  compensation of Rs. 1 lac for  mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- against the O.Ps. due to their deficiency of service.

The O.P. BSNL have appeared and by filing W.S. denied the claim of the Complainant. The O.Ps. have stated that the bill dated 05/02/2018 is correct and that the bill has been raised as per the usage of the billing period shown in item wise call details etc. which is available with the O.P. No.2. It is also stated by  the O.Ps. in their W.S. that the as per Jeevan Sathi scheme mobile No.9436928097 is connected with the complainant's mobile No.9436125112 and that on 11/01/2018 the post paid plan 325 against the mobile which was being used by the Complainant had been converted to plan 525. The O.Ps. further stated that in plan 525 free voice call is Rs.450/- and that total usage unit in the mobile of the Complainant had been calculated as Rs.22,093.90 and after making deduction of the benefits as provided by the O.Ps. the amount payable by the complainant comes to Rs.13,239.62. Accordingly to the O.Ps. the bill amount raised by them of Rs.13,079/- is also genuine. The O.Ps. have denied violation of order of the Forum dated 03/04/2018 as the disconnection in the mobile of the Complainant had occurred on account of the billing system which was showing dues to be paid by the Complainant against  his pending bills.

 

  It is also stated by the O.Ps. in the W.S. that detailed bill as asked for by the Complainant had been generated and same is available to the O.P. No.2. According to the O.Ps. the complainant as a customer has to collect the detailed bill from the Office of the BSNL, Agartala as there is no mechanism in the BSNL for sending the detailed bill by post to the Complainant. The O.Ps. have asserted that there is no deficiency of service on their part and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from them. 

 

  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

(I). Whether  there was a any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

      (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation ?

 

4. The complainant has produced copy of mobile bill dated 05/02/2018 for the period from 01/01/2018 to 31/01/2018, copy of letter dated 23/02/2018 given by him addressed to the O.P. No.2 and copy of letter dated 08/03/2018 given by him addressed to the O.P. No.2. He also produced his Statement on Affidavit . 

The O.Ps. on the other hand have produced copy of mobile bill dated 05/02/2018, call list of mobile Nos. 9436125112 & 9436928097 and the Statement on Affidavit of Sri Samir Das, the Authorized representative of the O.Ps. 

 

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have gone through the oral evidence and the documentary evidence adduced by both sides. It is found that in this case the Complainant has raised the issue about the inflated bill amounting to Rs.12,021.35 in respect of his mobile for the month of January,2018. Being dissatisfied with the bill amount the Complainant initially sent two letters dated 23/02/2018 & 08/03/2018  to the O.P. No.2 General Manager, BSNL, Northern Circle, Agartala requesting him to furnish detailed breakup  of the bill. But the O.P. did not give any response to the letters. From the W.S as well as from the Examination-in-chief of the witness of the O.Ps., we find that regarding furnishing of detailed breakup of the bill  as sought by the Complainant, the O.Ps. have taken the plea that the documents regarding detailed breakup of the bill are available in their office and that there is no mechanism in the BSNL to send it by post. According to the O.Ps. the Complainant being the customer, he has to come to the office to collect it. Such a stand taken by the O.Ps. according to us is quit unjust and improper. The O.Ps. ought to have informed the Complainant about their difficulties in sending the detailed report about the bill to the Complainant. Even the O.P. No.1 could have informed the Complainant to come to their office for collecting the detail bill. The O.P,. No.1 also could have taken alternative measures such as sending SMS to the Complainant. The Complainant as a consumer has a right under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to know on what basis the impugned bill had been raised. The omission in this respect on the part of the O.Ps. according to us amounts to deficiency of service. 

  From the case record we find that the O.Ps. have submitted detailed bill in respect of the mobile of the Complainant for the period of 01/01/2018 to 31/01/2018 on 05/07/2018 when W.S. was filed in the Forum. Copy of the detailed bill has not been furnished to the Complainant  side. The Complainant was thus deprived of a valuable right to file objection  against it. 

  We have gone through the impugned bill dated 05/02/2018 (for the month of January) and the threshold report of it furnish by the O.P.W-!. It appears to us that the mobile was having non roaming facility. Total amount due in the bill has been shown as Rs.12,021.35. There is no call charge levied but an amount Rs.22,093.90 has been shown as usage charges. The huge amount of the usage charge so levied appears to us exorbitant and abnormal in comparison to previous bills as claimed by the Complainant. 

  It is relevant to refer here that in a similar factual situation of the former case i.e. Case No.C.C.-07/2018 which had been instituted in this Forum against the present O.Ps. based on the Complaint filed by the present Complainant my Predecessor delivered judgment on 09/10/2018. In the said judgment the O.P. BSNL had been directed to receive from the Complainant Rs.1000/- as mobile bill charge for the period from 01/12/2017 to 31/12/2017 apart from imposition of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost against the O.Ps. The mobile bill charge was then fixed based on plan 325 as at that time the Complainant was availing plan 325 scheme of the BSNL. In view of the fact that the Complainant has opted for the plan 525 as well as Jeevan Sathi scheme from 11/01/2018, and having regard to the judgment delivered in case No. C.C.-07/2018, we consider that the O.P. BSNL be directed to receive Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.12,021.35 for the period from 01/01/2018 to 31/01/2018 from the Complainant. 

  We have noticed that due to the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. the Complainant suffered much. His mobile connection was disconnected in number of times. So we consider that the Complainant is also entitled to get compensation. 

6. In the result the complaint filed by the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is allowed on contest. We  direct both the O.Ps. to pay compensation in the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant and also Rs.3000/- as litigation costs. In total Rs.11,000/-. The Complainant is to pay the bill amount Rs.1500/- in stead of Rs.12,021.35 as claimed by the O.Ps. Both the O.Ps. are directed to comply the order within 02 months failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @9%  P.A. till the payment is made.  

 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.