BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 21 of 2011
Sri Bhagirath Goala, ………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The General Manager,
BSNL, Silchar, Daccaipatty-1. O.P No.1.
2. The Chief Accounts Officer (TR)
O/O the GMTD, BSNL, Silchar Daccaipatty-1. O.P No.2.
3. The ADT (PG)
O/O the CGMT, Assam Circle,
BSNL, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001. O.P No.3.
4. The AGM (Admn. & APIO)
O/O the G.M. BSNL, Silchar, Daccaipatty-1. O.P.No.4.
5. The JTO (IT)
BSNL, Silchar, Daccaipatty-1. O.P.No.5.
6. The SDE,
BSNL, Lakhipur, Silchar, Cachar O.P No.6.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Jagodish Barbhuiya , Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Santanu Nandan Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 19-08-2011
Date of written argument……………… 19-05-2015, 22-06-2015
Date of argument………………………. 15-03-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 09-08-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Dednath,
- The complaint brought U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by Sri Bhagirath Goala against BSNL, Silchar and its 5 (Five) more Officers for award of compensation for issuing a false, fraudulent, illegal and excess bill No. T0702201015579919 dated 07-02-2010 amounting Rs.39,230/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred thirty) Only.
- The complaint brought following facts in order to get the reliefs:-
He is Broad Band user vide Telephone No. PLP-284613 and Consumer No. 030620090956769. Monthly rental of internet connection was Rs.250/-.The O.Ps issued a bill No. T0702201015579919 dated 07-02-2010 amounting to Rs.39,230/-. The complainant after receiving the said illegal excess amounted bill got mental shock due to disservice and negligency of the O.Ps in duties.
- Hence, this case is brought with the relief for declaration that the bill submitted by O.P on 07-02-2010 is false, fraudulent, baseless, illegal and mala fide and directing to the O.P to receive rent at rate of Rs.250/- per month and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceeding.
- The O.P 1 to 6 submitted W/S through the O.P No.2 i.e. Chief Accounts Officer (TR), Silchar. He stated inter alia that the complainant obtained land phone based internet connection No.PLP-284613 under popular plan of the O.P-BSNL called Broad Band plan of Rs.250/- per month, in which the uploading and the downloading facilities were limited to 1 (one) G.B. per month and excess of 1 (one) G.B was chargeable as per rule fixed by the BSNL which was 0.54 paisa per M.B. However, he stated further that the plan of unlimited uploading and the downloading facilities is Rs.750/- per month rental but the complainant did not opted that plan.
- During hearing the Complainant deposed on oath and exhibited the Telephone bill vide Ext. 1, the Customer Detail Record vide Ext.2 and 3. The O.P submitted examination-in-chief with some documents but this District Forum did not accept the evidence of the O.P vide order dated 27-11-2012. Of course both sides’ counsels submitted written argument.
- In this case, we are not taking into consideration the deposition of the witness of O.P in view of order dated 27-11-2012. Moreover, the O.P by filing a petition No. 741 stated before this District Forum that in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant dispute. Accordingly, submitted case law of Supreme Court vide General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another 2009 (4) CPR 119 (SC). But the claimant submitted decision of Guahati High Court in Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. Director, Telecom Department (1992) L CPR 476 (Assam). As per the decision of the Supreme Court, in the above referred case the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction because special remedy provided by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills and remedy under Consumer protection Act is by implication barred. Whereas, the Guahati High Court 7 (Seven) years earlier to the above decision of the Supreme Court held in the aforesaid referred case that the existence of a remedy by way of arbitration under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act did not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum because it did not preclude an aggrieved consumer from seeking redressal before the Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act which was a special statute enacted by Parliament for specific purpose of proving a speedy, cheap and efficacious trial.
- As the Supreme Court and Guahati High Court conflicted to each other, so, as per law of precedent the law laid down by the Supreme Court is required to be followed but the than President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar on in view of order dated 23-03-2012 rejected the plea and prayer of the O.P in connection with petition No.741. That is why we have perused the written arguments and evidence of the complainant on record including W/S of the O.Ps.
- From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the Telephone bill was issued for Rs.39,230/- in which Broad Band usage charge was Rs.35,198 and rental for 1 (one) month was Rs.250/-. It is also revealed from Ext.1. Bill that total 66,204 M.B of data was used for the period of the Ext.1 bill on January,2010. The Ext.2 and 3 also supported the same account. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the plan for Rs.250/- per month is not for unlimited use of downloading and uploading data. But the Complainant stated that the O.P Nos.6 i.e. SDE, BSNL, Lakhipur suggested to opt the Rs.250/- per month as it is unlimited which is not admitted by the O.Ps. So, it is the burden of the Complainant to establish the said fact and not only the said fact but also required to establish other, overt act of the O.Ps to conclude that he was misguided by the O.P to take the plan Rs.250/- with impression that the said plan was unlimited. Nothing found in the evidence on record to believe the plea of the Complainant that O.P No.6 misguided.
- For which in this case, we do not find any disservice or deficiency of service of the O.Ps for issuing the Ext.1 Telephone bill. Therefore, we do not inclined to grant any relief to the complainant. Therefore, the case is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 9th day of August, 2017.
