DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2024
Filed on: 01/04/2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 233/2023
COMPLAINANT
K. Viswanathan, S/o. late S. Krishnan, “Gokul”, H. No. 32/329, Kannankulangara, Thripunithura 682301.
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Branch Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd., Thripunithura Branch, Thripunithura 682301.
F I N A L O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party called ‘Fed-e-pay’ for making online payment to M/s. BSNL relating to the complainant’s mobile No. 9446314433 and landline No. 0484-2784433 by debiting the SB A/c of the complainant by monthly and bimonthly respectively. The complainant was surprised to receive a hard copy of the bill dated 06/02/2018 relating to the landline number wherein a late fee of Rs.10/- was charged by BSNL for delayed payment. A letter was given to the opposite party for rectifying the mistake and to remit back the late fee of Rs.10/- by crediting the amount to the SB A/c. of the complainant.
Instead the opposite party has sent an e-mail to BSNL to rectify the mistake due to the receipt of customer complaint received by the opposite party. the opposite party had informed the complainant that BSNL has agreed to make adjustment in the next bill (bimonthly bill). But BSNL did not make adjustment in the next bill dated 06/04/2018, 08/06/2018, 06/08/2018 and 05/10/2018. Finally it was done in the bill dated 06/12/2018. This caused mental agony to the complainant.
The complainant states that the opposite party should have given credit to the SB A/c immediately without referring the matter to BSNL. Thus the opposite party has not insured to make the payment in the due date. The complainant states that this is deficiency in service and customer was treated badly and put on hardships. The complainant states that the opposite party has made breach of contract called ‘fed-e-pay’. The complainant was advised to report to the opposite party by monitoring the subsequent bills to know the mistake has been rectified. The complainant states that the advice made by the opposite party is unwarranted as the complainant is not having any connection with BSNL on the bill payment issue and should not have dragged BSNL to the picture. There is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party since opposite party has made a breach of trust on the agreement. Hence the complaint.
2) NOTICE
The notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 18/04/2023 and the case was posted for the return of notice to 23/05/2023.
Upon notice opposite party appeared on 23/05/2023 and filed their version.
3)VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY
The Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The alleged complaint is happened in 2018 and the complaint is barred by limitation.
The late fee was charged on the telephone bill of the complaint by BSNL. As stated in the complaint the late fee charged was also received by BSNL itself and the same was reflected in the bill dated 06/12/2017. BSNL is a necessary party to the complaint.
The opposite party bank has made payment of all the bills that were generated and submitted by BSNL against the landline No. 0484-2784433 and mobile No. 9446314433 of the complainant within the due date by debiting his SB A/c. No. 10940100103485. This is evident from the statement of account of the SB A/c. of the complainant.
A late fee of Rs.10/- was reflected in the bill dated 06/02/2018. The due date of the previous bill dated 05/12/2017 was 28/12/2017. There was a debit of Rs.568/- on 28/12/2017. The opposite party bank has made the payment of the bill amount within the due date and the late fee reflected in the bill subsequently generated is due to no fault of the opposite party.
The allegation that the opposite party bank has committed breach of the ‘fed-e-pay agreement’ is false and hence denied by the opposite party.
The BSNL themselves have refunded the late fee charged in bill dated 06/12/2018 which implicates that there is an error/fault from their part which has corrected subsequently. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the opposite party’s part. The complainant is not entitled to get compensation and cost of proceedings from the opposite party.
4) Evidence
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A6. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.
The opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
On verification it is seen that opposite party has produced one document, the account statement of the complainant’s bank account maintained at the opposite party’s bank at Thripunithura branch.
5) The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and costs?
The case of the complainant is that when the ill issued by the BSNL dated 06/02/2018 for Rs.578/-, relating to the complainant’s landline number 0484-2784433, wherein a late fee of Rs.10/- was charged by the BSNL for delayed payment. The complainant states that he had underwent an agreement with the opposite party ‘Fed-E-Pay’ by debiting his SB Account bimonthly so as to pay the bills towards his landline BSNL connection to BSNL Ltd. The complainant states that the opposite party has entrusted to make the payment without default as per the agreement. The payment was not made on or before the due date on 27/02/2018 resulting the late fee.
The complainant has produced six documents which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A6.
Exbt. A1: Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party for rectifying the error and to credit Rs.10/- to the SB A/c of the complainant.
Exbt. A2: Copy of the telephone bill relating to the complainant’s landline number 0484-278 4433 dated 06/02/2018 for Rs.578/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the telephone bill dated 06/04/2018 for Rs.566/-
Exbt. A4: Copy of the telephone bill dated 08/06/2018 for Rs.569/-
Exbt. A5: Copy of the telephone bill dated 30/08/2018 for Rs.566/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the telephone bill dated 05/10/2018 for Rs.566/-
6) Arguments of the complainant
The late fee charged by the BSNL in the bill dated 06/02/2018 was due to the non-payment of the bill amount from the complainant’s SB A/c by the opposite party only. The opposite party is duty bound to make payments without any default.
The demand of the complainant to refund the late fee by crediting the amount in the SB A/c was rejected by the opposite party saying that the late fee will be adjusted by BSNL in the subsequent bill. But the adjustment was made by the BSNL in the bill dated 06/12/2018, after a period of 8 months. This is deficiency in service and negligence from the part of opposite party.
The complainant is not having direct connection with BSNL on the bill payment issue and should not have dragged BSNL to the picture.
The fed-e-payment agreement was entered in 2006/07. The opposite party has claimed that payment of the previous bill dated 05/12/2017 was made on the due date ie. 28/12/2017, the amount being Rs.568/-. Even a few hours late payment will attract late fee. The opposite party did not ensure the payment on the due date. The BSNL has again charged a late fee of Rs.10/- in the present latest bill dated 03/06/2024 due to the late payment of bill for the month of May, 2024. A copy of the bill is also produced along with argument notes. Hence the complainant is claiming an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the opposite party.
We have thoroughly verified the facts of the case, version filed by the opposite party, documentary evidence submitted from both the sides. As per document No. 2 (bill dated 06/02/2018) a late fee of Rs.10/- was charged in the bill issued by the BSNL for Rs.578/- in connection with the complainant’s landline connection. The payment due date was shown as 27/02/2018. The bill period is shown as 01/12/2017 to 31/01/2018. The document produced by the opposite party along with the version proves that on 28/12/2017 itself opposite party has debited Rs.568/- from the complainant’s SB A/c as ‘e-pay’ payment related to the complainant’s landline No. 04842784433. Since a late fee of Rs.10/- is included in the bill amount of Rs.578/- issued by the BSNL, it can be assumed that the actual bill amount is Rs.568/-. From the account statement produced by the opposite party, it is evident that the opposite party has debited this amount from the complainant’s account on 28/12/2017 ie. within the bill period (01/12/2017 to 31/01/2018) which is also much before the payment due date 27/02/2018.
The complainant states that the opposite party is duty bound to make the payments to the BSNL without any default. The complainant in the argument notes also stated that the ‘fed-e-payment’ agreement was entered in 2006/07. But the complainant has not produced the ‘fed-e-payment’ agreement before the Commission. Without knowing the terms and conditions of the agreement in connection with the payments to the BSNL connection, we can’t make an observation in the matter that whether the opposite party has made defaults in payments. The late fee of Rs.10/- was reflected on the bill dated 06/12/2018. He has also produced the bills dated 06/04/2018, 08/06/2018, 06/08/2018 and 05/10/2018 to prove that the BSNL did not make adjustments in the subsequent bills. Since late fee of Rs.10/- is reflected in the bill dated 06/02/2018 he must have produced the previous bill (bill of December, 2017) also. The complainant has not produced sufficient documents to prove that the opposite party has made a default in arranging the payments to the BSNL by debiting the SB a/c of the complainant in time. Moreover he has admitted in his complaint that the BSNL has adjusted this late fee of Rs.10/- in the bill dated 06/12/2018.
From the available evidence produced by the complainant no deficiency in service or negligence is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the opposite party has not made the necessary arrangements to ensure the payments to the BSNL on the due date itself.
In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that it is the complainant who had approached the Commission therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party can’t be held responsible for deficiency in service.
The initial onus to prove any deficiency of service or manufacturing defect of the phone is upon the complainant who alleges it. The complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the opposite party. The complainant has failed to produce sufficient documents and hence Issue No. (1) and (2) are found not in favour of the complainant since there is no merit in the case. The complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt. A1: Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party for rectifying the error and to credit Rs.10/- to the SB A/c of the complainant.
Exbt. A2: Copy of the telephone bill relating to the complainant’s landline number 0484-27/4433 dated 06/02/2018 for Rs.578/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the telephone bill dated 06/04/2018 for Rs.566/-
Exbt. A4: Copy of the telephone bill dated 08/06/2018 for Rs.569/-
Exbt. A5: Copy of the telephone bill dated 30/08/2018 for Rs.566/-
Exbt. A3: Copy of the telephone bill dated 05/10/2018 for Rs.566/-
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 233/2023
Order Date: 29/10/2024
