DATE OF DISPOSAL: 29.02.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) for redressal of his following grievances before this Commission
– Relief sought:
- Order the opposite party to pay Rs.129.79/- (as interest of security deposit amount), Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for physical harassment, mental agony with financial losses, and Rs.15,000/- as costs.
- Pass any other such order, as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The complainant has surrendered his landline number No:0680-2282484 with the opposite party on 23.08.2017 which was provided by the opposite party on 19.09.2016. But the opposite party did not refund the security deposit within stipulated period as per Telecom law. To redress the grievance, the complainant also approached the opposite parties several times. On 14.07.2021 the opposite parties refunded an amount of Rs.332/- to the Complainant’s account bearing A/c No.:217110100033120. But the opposite parties have not paid a sum of Rs.129.79/- in accordance to the TRAI’s regulation. Meanwhile, after 3 years 10 months and 22 days, the opposite parties paid the above amount of Rs.332/- which was beyond 60 days policy of the TRAI. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint for deficiency in services of the opposite party as not refunded a sum of Rs.129.79/- (as interest of security deposit amount) to him and prayed as above.
3. The Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties.
4. Duly acknowledging the notice, the Opposite Parties have appeared and filed written version through their Advocate. The opposite parties submitted that, the complainant has surrendered his landline number 06822-273508 and broad band service on 23.08.2017. The opposite party further submitted in their written version that, the complainant only submitted the application for only disconnection of land line and broad band connection of BSNL and he never made any application for dismantling of such connections and of the apparatus with BSNL. The complainant never approached with personal visits to the office of opposite parties with the placement of his request or demands and as such the allegations of complainant are all after thought and invented for the purpose of his speculative and spurious proceedings. The opposite parties have remitted the actual sum of Rs.332/- to the complainant towards the balance outstanding amounts on adjustment of the subsisting dues under his usages of apparatuses and on his submission of bank account, the opposite party has rightly made transfer of the said sum of Rs.332/- to his satisfaction of the ultimate claim and the complainant has received the same without any demurs and as such the acceptance of the said amount by the complainant is towards full and final satisfaction of his claims. The security deposit with the opposite parties as a caution money deposited by the complainant at the time of sanctioning land line and broad band line with the apparatus to the complainant is always subject to settlement of the account of adjustments of arrears and any debt payable by the complainant will be adjusted out of the said caution money and the balance amount will be refunded to the customer/complainant but not as of right seeking demand for refund of total caution money which being always subject to calculation and claims under different heads for which the opposite parties on repeated occasions called upon the complainant to attend the office of Berhampur BSNL for settlement of account in full and final satisfaction, but the complainant himself with malicious objectives did not choose to attend the office and as well not interested to make any written application duly signed by him before the competent authority of BSNL.
The opposite party stated that, for settlement of the account, the complainant has to make an application before the competent authority of the office of Berhampur BSNL in pursuance to the statutory provisions of Sec. 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The opposite party submitted that, there is no kind of subsistence of deficiency in service between the complainant and opposite party in consonance with the present facts involved and the remedy is only available and may be opted by the complainant to invoke the provisions of Sec. 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and/or to approach the competent civil court having jurisdiction. There is no relationship between the complainant as of subscriber and of the telecom department subsequent to the surrender of the land line and broadband lines and as well of the instrument. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the proceeding with compensatory costs.
5. On the date of hearing the Advocate for the opposite parties and the complainant in person are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, and documents available in the case record.
6. Prima facie, the complaint is maintainable before the District Commission in accordance to the definition of the Service laid down under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, while Section 2(42) of the current Act,2019 defines the same.
7. On analyzing the evidences available in the case record, it comes to table that, the District Consumer Fora is having no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. The complainant can file application under Sec. 7B of the Telegraph Act instead of initiate present proceeding. So the complaint may be disposed of accordingly. The Hon’ble National Commission in Telecom District Manager v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd reported in II (1991) CPJ 286 NC that, The Forum under the Consumer Protection act have jurisdiction to entertain and decide disputes which might be covered under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and xxx … xxx … xxx and the Indian Telegraph Act does not oust the operation of Consumer Protect Act in such cases.” Further, the Telecom Consumers Protection And Redressal Of Grievances Regulations, 2007 has provided that consumers can seek redressal for their grievances under Consumer Protection Act.
It is manifest from the record that, the opposite parties did not provide service regarding refund of the security deposit after adjustment of dues, if any, from the subscribers which was in violation of their own Circular No.:2-4/2002-BSNL(TR), Dated:12.09.2003. In the instant case, the complainant has surrendered his landline and broadband line on 23.08.2017. It is also revealed that, the opposite parties in the present case already refunded the security deposit after adjustment of dues a sum of Rs.332/- but did not paid the interest as per statutory provisions laid down by the TRAI i.e., the said security deposit has paid after 60 days of date of closure of landline and broadband line to the complainant. And the TRAI has also decided that, the telecom service providers shall pay an interest @ 10% pa for the delayed period beyond 60 days. The opposite party also circulated the same decision of the TRAI in the Circular (supra).
So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the O.P failed to take any effective steps to short out the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically, financially and mentally. As such the complaint is entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Commission and has incurred expenses attending the case.
In the result, considering the Circular of BSNL (supra), the Commission allowed the case on contest against the opposite party no.1 and dismissed against the opposite party no. 2 and 3. The opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the interest amount of Rs.129.79/- together with compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the opposite party, the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire dues which shall carry 12% p.a from the date of filling of the case i.e., on 03.08.2021 in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 29.02.2024
