Order-14.
Date-28/07/2015.
Complainant Smt. Tripti Kar by filing this complaint submitted that she has a landline and broadband connection (Cust. Id. 3005551162, Ph. No. 25772089) under BSNL, Calcutta Telephones Co.
In respect of that Broadband Line, a scheme was Full Night Unlimited (FN500 Rs.500) and complainant got unlimited bandwith and usage without any additional charge from 2AM to 8AM and rest of the day his limit is 2.5 GB per month.
Complainant received his bill for the month of July-2014 (01.07.2014 to 31.07.2014) telephone Bill on 21.08.2014 in which her broadband plan has been changed to CNT 500 and op charged full night usage (2AM – 8AM) with Rs. 0.15/- per MB as well as charged the normal free usage of 2.5GB and they charged Rs. 7,365/- including of all taxes in spirt of actual payment of Rs. 859.55/- as per her LL/BB plan.
On receipt of the said bill, complainant was astonished to see that her previous plan (FN 500 Rs. 500/-) did not change her plan to CNT 500 without any prior intimation of change of plan with any verbal or written or electronic or telephonic communication towards the complainant.But how it can be possible that an unlimited plan has been changed chargeable plan without any prior intimation?
On 22.08.2014 her son Shri AshisKar communicated with their customer service centre at Cossipore with Mr. S.K. Kanjilal (D.E. Cossipore) but he cannot help her to solve the problem.But complainant was compelled to pay the entire bill amount of Rs. 7,365/- and subsequently wrote a letter to the authority with reference to a number and after waiting over a month, complainant did not get any communication for which she wrote a letter to the Hon’ble M.I,C., Consumer Affairs Department against BSNL.Thereafter complainant saw a news in AnandabazarPatrika that BSNL will review the complaints of the customers and asked the customers to communicate through phone numbers or email between 27 to 30th October, 2014.
Subsequently when op did not redress the grievance of the complainant, complainant lodged a complaint to Consumer Affairs Department, Kolkata-87 where op appeared in the tripartite meeting on 29.01.2015 and submitted that the matter was published in the SambadPratidin, Statesman, Vishwamitra etc. on 06.07.2014 to 07.07.2014 and that was widely published newspaper and changed a plan was intimated.
But most interesting factor is that bill was sent but along with that no intimation was given.But when the mediation was failed, complainant filed this complaint for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op and for changing the said plan without informing the complainant and for which for deficient manner of service, complainant filed this complaint and prayed for redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that this complaint is barred by provision of Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act and further submitted that as per Circulation of the BSNL Company existing plan BBFN 500 had been changed.So, they have their nothing to do.Further it is submitted that as per Circular No.& C.CFA. dated 03.06.2014, BB Night usages (2AM – 8AM) will be charged at the rate of 0.15 per MB w.e.f. 01.07.2014 but no message or public announcement was done prior to the effective date of advertisement in this regard published on 07.07.2014.So, BB Night usages w.e.f. 01.07.2014 to 07.07.2014 amounting to Rs. 688/- has to be given adjustment to the complainant due to late advertisement.But all further allegations have beendenied by the op and prayed for dismissal of the case.But it is also submitted that Rs. 688/- has been given to the complainant as repaid after review and more than that there is nothing to do on the part of the op.
Decision with reasons
After comparative study of the complaint and also written version and hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that no doubt complainant had been enjoying the plan (FN 500Rs. 500/-) and she was a regular customer, she paid bill regularly, she was not defaulter.But subsequently complainant for the first time got a bill for the period of 01.07.2014 to 31.07.2014 for a sum of Rs. 7,365/-.47/- paisa and that was received by the complainant on 21.08.2014, complainant paid the bill, what is undisputed.But along with that bill, no information of change of plan as per order of the BSNL was sent and after considering and studying the said bill, it is clear that even an idiot can realise why the bill amount is so high when complainant did not enjoy BBG FN 500 Plan and same is not noted in the bill also.
Most interesting factor is that in the said bill, there is no information that bill has been prepared as per New Plan BBG FN 500 which was introduced on and from 01.07.2014 or 08.07.2014 and in view of the above fact, we are convinced that even after receipt of the bill for the month of July-2014, complainant failed to understand for what reason usage charges were so high because complainant was enjoying Full Night Unlimited (FN 500 Rs. 500/-) which is undisputed.
Truth is that BSNL Company changed that plan and introduced a new scheme i.e. BBG FN 500 w.e.f. 09.07.2014.But that was not reported to the complainant and along with bill 2014, it was not sent.Then it is clear that complainant was in darkness and no consent was taken from the complainant, whether complainant is willing to continue the new scheme or not.But automatically op sent a bill charging tariff under BBG FN 500 Plan w.e.f. 01.07.2014.
No doubt from the admission of the op, it is clear that their circulation was not sufficient for which they deducted Rs. 667.64 paisa as adjustment for charging new tariff from 01.07.2014 to 08.07.2014 that means it is admission of the op that complainant was not aware of the fact and it was not intimated to the complainant by any means whatsoever even if it was not informed, though bill for July-2014 which changed tariff under BBG FN 500 that means complainant was never informed about the change of tariff.
Another factor is that in the bill of the month of July-2014, it was not noted that tariff has been changed and scheme has been changed and complainant as usually using the scheme of FN 500 Rs. 500 used to payRs. 859.55 paisa inclusive all as per her Landline/Broadband Plan.Now the question is whether there was any deficiency or negligence on the part of the op?
No doubt in this case op has tried that they worked under the order of the company’s Directorate order and as per order they charged new tariff from 09.07.2014 and previous plan has been changed to BBG FN 500 Rs. 500 Scheme.But anyhow no plan can be implemented against any customer without his/her consent if it is found that at the relevant point of time the said customer has been enjoying any other plan, in respect of lower charge and in that case, it is the duty on the part of the company (BSNL) to inform the same to consumer/complainant or customer whether the complainant/customer is willing to continue the plan or discontinue the service, but that was not done.No doubt it is completely uncalled for, arbitrary in nature and invariably corporate social responsibility as service provider has not been at all followed.
Most interesting factor is that complainant without realizing about the high bill for the month of July-2014 paid the entire amount what is undisputed.Thereafter complainant lodged a complaint that nothing was reported to the complainant, but it has come to know about such charge of tariff or plan when she filed a complaint before the CA Department whereas op took a defence that the complainant has been enjoying a plan, but it has been changed and full night free usage benefit has been withdrawn.So, it is proved that op acted in an arbitrary manner.Op did not render service properly and without taking consent of the complainant, op sent the bill for the month of July-2014 charging new tariff as per new plan.
Invariably complainant was not able to continue such a plan and practically she was in darkness for the negative attitude of the op and op no doubt did not render proper service.Truth is that BSNL already disconnected landline including broadband line of the op from the month of October-2014 but op has not sent the bill for subsequent month.But truth is that the change of plan by the op is completely without the consent of the complainant and for which no doubt op cannot claim any bill from the complainant.In this context it is to be mentioned that taking of Broadband line is nothing but a contract in between the parties and if any new condition is imposed by the company in if consent of the party (customer) is taken.Thereafter new condition shall be applied otherwise unilaterally company cannot impose any new plan upon the customer.But in this case that has been done and no doubt such an act on the part of the op is deceitful manner of trade and that trade cannot be continued in such a fashion.
Further fact is that nowadays communication is made by phone, SMS, etc. that was not done in this case.That means BSNL thought that they shall have to do unilaterally and customer shall abide by it.But it must be borne in the mindof BSNL that they cannot impose any condition unilaterally without any written consent of the complainant and in this case op have failed to prove by any cogent evidence that they reported the matter to the complainant for her consent and when complainant did not send any reply, then new charge was imposed, but op has failed to prove that by any cogent document for which we are convinced that illegally new tariff has been charged without the consent of the complainant for which no doubt complainant is not bound to pay any further charges after July-2014 and if any bill has been prepared by the op after July-2014 that is found completely illegal and uncalled for and complainant is not liable to pay any further sum for such bill even if it is not paid for the period of August to October, 2014 because in the month of August-2014 the broadband line had been disconnected by the op and complainant is not willing to continue such plan so complainant is not liable to pay any bill for the month of August, Septembner and October - 2014and op cannot claim any further amount from the complainant.
Anyhow we have gathered that complainant already paid the excess charge for the month of July-2014 and invariably that excess charge must be returned to the complainant by the op and that amount is Rs. 6,505/- and further on the ground that the plan has been changed without the consent of the complainant without informing the complainant and without giving any chances to the complainant to realise why the bill for the month of July-2014 was assessed at high rate.
In this context it is to be mentioned that any change of plan or hike of tariff shall be informed to the customer through their current month bill and Electricity Department is reporting that with current month bill from which monthly increase of tariff can be assessed and in this case that BSNL has prepared callous type of bill prepared by their administration, even this Forum has failed to realise why the charge was so high when prior to that complainant paid in each month a sum of Rs. 859.55 paisa.
Considering all the above fact and circumstances, we have gathered that BSNL is being run in a very worthless manner and their service is very very poor and for which BSNL is being criticized from all corners for their worthless administration, staff and officers which cannot be denied under any circumstances on the ground we have realized by handling many cases that BSNL is now invariably a national liability of the Central Government.But anyhow there is none to control the unmannerly behavior of staff, officers including their Department.
Relying upon the above finding we are convinced that complainant has been harassed by the ops and changing of present claim of BBG FN 500 is completely uncalled for when it has been done without the consent of the complainant, then invariably op is liable to realise any further amount from August to October – 2014 and also from 09.07.2014 to 31.07.2014.Accordingly for negligent and deceitful manner of trade op shall have to refund Rs. 6,505/- and also shall have to pay litigation cost.
Fact remains that in this case op’s Ld. Lawyer repeatedly submitted that there is Arbitration Clause and as per order of Supreme Court, this Consumer Forum has no authority to decide such a complaint when there is Arbitration Clause.But in this regard we want to say that already it is decided by the Supreme Court reported in 2000 CTJ 321 that existence of Arbitration Caluse in the agreement will not be a bar to the entertainment of a complaint by a consumer relatable to deficiency of service.
So, we are convinced that Supreme Court already decided by their judgement that even after existence of Arbitration Clause, for deficiency of service, complainant can file this complaint and for existence of Arbitration Clause the present complaint is not otherwise barred and fact remains that the present complaint is maintainable and truth is that BSNL has no say in the present case for which they only raised a plea that it is barred as there is Arbitration Clause, but no other allegation has been challenged by the op and it is common practice of the BSNL in almost all the cases because they have their no other defence to satisfy that they are serving the consumer diligently, decently and dedicatedly.But as because their entire service does not serve consumers at all they have not denied the fact of allegation as made in the complaint.So negligence on the part of the op is well proved though there is only defence Arbitration Clause.In fact in most of the cases which has been reflected by Forum upto Supreme Court and it has been decided that deficiency in service can be entertained even if there is existence of Arbitration Clause.
Most interesting factor is that even after existence of so many judgements of Supreme Court, they are only producing one cat from their bag that is present judgement which has been referred by the op and their service is also like that.Their only defence is company has not supplied materials for which they are unable to give service.If it is continued, invariably people at large (Consumers) may raise handsfor closing down their business to save the country huge loss of money to pay salaries to the BSNL Authorities and for running such a big white elephant.
In the result, this complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
-
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Op is hereby directed to refund of Rs. 6,505/- at once to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental pain, harassment and also for adopting deceitful manner of trade by the op.
Op shall have to pay the entire decretal amount within one month, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.
Even if it is found that op fails to comply the order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon op.
