DATE OF FILING: 21.07.2016.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 04.10.2017
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member(W):
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 04.04.2005 he had applied to B.S.N.L. Bhanjanagar Division office for a new landline telephone connection. As stated in the complaint the complainant is residing at Tulasipalli village on the main road side and in front of his house BSNL connection pole is standing. After verification, the O.P. intimated to the complainant to deposit Rs.500/- and accordingly the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.500/- as demand note N.T.C. at Bhanjanagar Head Post Office on 08.09.2005. Although he deposited the amount as per their direction in time but he was not given the telephone connection till date. The complainant requested to the S.D.O., B.S.N.L. Bhanjanagar for several times to give the telephone connection but all went in vain. It is also stated in the complaint that he had applied for the landline telephone for his personal business purpose but they did not give the connection to his house, so he could not deal with his clients. He has also alleged that he was running from Bhanjanagar to Berhampur for several times with unnecessary expenditure in this regard. He spent Rs.1,000/- for correspondence to the B.S.N.L. Berhampur Office and also personally visited to the said Office and handed over the letter of SDO, BSNL, Bhanjanagar to the Accounts Officer, BSNL Berhampur on 08.01.2016. But they did not give any heed to his grievances. For their negligence in duty the complainant suffered from mental agony and lost his livelihood. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to return the deposited amount of Rs.500/- along with 14% interest per annum and to pay compensation and cost of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and loss of livelihood in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps appeared through learned counsel Sri M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate, Berhampur on 07.09.2016 and filed written version on17.01.2017. In the written version, it is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations. The allegations of the complainant that the complainant has applied for a new landline telephone connection on 04.04.2005 by depositing an amount of Rs.500/- before the Head office on 08.09.2005. The S.D.O. Bhanjanagar did not provide the connection to the complainant and for that the complainant repeatedly harassed for years together etc are not all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant has not disclosed the money receipt number as well as the demand note number as referred in the complaint petition, for which these O.Ps are at present not able to refer the concerned file for proper answering the allegations made by the complainant against these O.Ps, so the present complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. From bare reading of the complaint petition it can be established to the extent that the complainant has alleged to have been deposited the process charges and as per the general procedure the telephone connection can be provided subject to feasibility of connection in that area. So the complainant is an intending consumer and not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act as well as within the meaning of the Telegraph Act. In absence of the status of consumer, the complainant is not entitled for any relief under the Consumer Protection Act through the present complaint petition. Admittedly as per the own admission of the complainant in the complaint petition an amount of Rs.500/- deposited on 18.09.2005 and no demand or correspondence was made by the complainant till filing of the present complaint petition in the year 2016 i.e. on 20.07.2016. There is also no evidence on record to establish that the amount claimed under this complaint petition is demanded by the complainant for time and again from the year 2005. In view of non-claim of the aforesaid amount before the O.Ps from the year 2005 onwards, the realization of the alleged deposited amount is became un-recoverable and barred by limitation. This Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear the dispute in view of lack of jurisdiction and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed on limitation. There is no cause of action for the present complain petition and there is no deficiency in service made by the O.Ps while rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has not taken effective steps for getting the telephone connection; otherwise the complainant would have make correspondence with the O.Ps from time and again by providing proper identification etc. Since the complainant has not furnished the demand note number and date as well as money receipt in the complaint petition, for which the O.Ps reserve their right to file additional version if required. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute, we have heard arguments at length from the complainant who was present in person as well as the learned counsel for the O.Ps. We have also perused the case record, gone through the complaint and written arguments and verified the material documents filed by both parties. During the course of argument of the case, the complainant submitted that he is a consumer since he has deposited Rs.500/- on 08.09.2005 for a landline connection applied on 04.04.2005. The complainant approached to the O.Ps for the said landline connection but they did not give the telephone connection. He further submitted that he has visited the B.S.N.L. Office for several times and incurred financial loss but all went in vain and the O.Ps did not care to give the new connection. Finally he visited the B.S.N.L. Office, Berhampur on 08.01.2016 and met with the Accounts Officer but that also did not serve any purpose. On 07.09.2016 the complainant filed a memo that the O.P. has sent a speed post letter to the complainant along with a cheque bearing No.023216 of ICICI Bank dated 18.08.2016 for Rs.500/- towards refund of the deposited amount but the complainant returned the mentioning that the matter is sub-judice before this Forum. He further submitted that now he is no more interested for the new connection so the O.Ps may be directed to return the amount deposited with interest and to pay compensation and cost.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.Ps contended that the complainant approached O.Ps after a long gap and he did not disclose the money receipt number as well as the demand note number to the office so it was not possible to proceed with his case for new landline telephone connection. It is submitted that landline telephone connection is subject to feasibility and there was not availability of technical feasibility report for giving the telephone connection to the complainant. The complainant has filed this complainant after long period which is barred by limitation. Further he contended that the allegation of spending more than Rs.1,000/- while making correspondence with O.Ps is without any documentary evidence so there is no evidence to prove the same. He admitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.500/- in the year 2005 for a new landline connection but contended that when it was not possible for the O.Ps for giving the new connection, the complainant was returned the amount of Rs.500/- vide cheque No.023216 dated 18.08.2016. Prior to that the O.Ps had sent the amount by Regd. Post but that was returned due to incorrect postal address. This case is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint hence the case may be dismissed with cost.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the complainant as well as learned counsel for the O.Ps. We have also perused the documentary evidence filed by the complainant as well as by the O.Ps placed on the case record. On careful verification of documents we found that the complainant deposited Rs.500/- before the S.D.O. (Telephone), Bhanjanagar on dated 08.09.2005 vide his application dated 4.4.2005. Similarly, the S.D.O. Telegraph, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, generated the demand note on 05.09.2005. However, for some unknown reason, he could not get the new landline telephone connection and he redressed his grievances before S.D.O, Bhanjanagar on 10.12.2005 and 8.01.2016 but the O.Ps neither give the new telephone landline connection nor refunded the amount deposited for the same. On further perusal we find that the O.Ps on 18.08.2016 submitted a cheque in this Forum bearing No.023216 for Rs.500/- of ICICI bank in the name of the complainant towards refund of the deposited amount but the complainant denied to receive the same since the matter was subjudice before this Forum. On the foregoing fact and circumstances it is clear that the O.Ps detained the amount of the complainant from 08.09.2005 up to 18.08.2016. As per the contention of O.Ps the complainant never approached to the concerned office is not true since the complainant submitted copies of his grievance letter dated 10.12.2005, 24.2.2014 and 8.1.2016 placed on the case record. We feel that no swift action was taken to refund the amount even after repeated requests made by the complainant and the amount was detained by the O.Ps without providing any service which is amounts to deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps. In our considered view, in this case, the amount was kept by O.Ps without providing any useful service and the amount refunded through cheque only on 18.8.2016 after receipt of notice from this Forum. Hence, the O.Ps are liable to pay savings bank interest on the amount detained from the date of deposit to till the amount refunded to the complainant. Similarly, in this case the complainant was forced to file this consumer dispute due to the indifferent attitudes, negligence and deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps hence they are liable to pay cost of litigation since the complainant has faced a lot of inconveniences and paid the court fees for filing this case. As far cost of litigation is concerned, we feel that a sum of Rs.500/- will be just and proper towards cost of litigation to be paid by the O.Ps in the fact and circumstances of the case since the complainant has personally attended the case coming from Bhanjanagar and has also incurred unnecessary expenditures facing a lot of problems. However, as prayed by the complainant, we are not interested to direct the O.Ps to pay any compensation for harassment since we have already directed as discussed above to pay savings bank interest on the detained amount of the complainant. In the light of the above discussion and considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, we partially allowed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps who are liable to refund the deposited amount to the complainant.
7. In the result, we direct the O.Ps to refund the deposited amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only to the complainant with interest @4% per annum from date of deposit till the amount returned to the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The aforesaid order shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the whole amount under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No order as to compensation.
8. The order is pronounced on this day of 4th October 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
