DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.02.2024
PER: SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) for redressal of his following grievances before this Commission
– Relief sought:
- Direct the opposite party to refund the refundable security deposit/caution money of Rs.2000/- with interest as per Telecom Law of the land.
- Direct the opposite party to pay interest @ 18% pa for delay payment.
- Direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-.
- Direct the opposite party to pay litigation cost of Rs.1500/-.
- And such other and further relief as respected Dist. Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the proceedings.
2. The complainant has surrendered his landline number No:06822-273508 with the opposite party on 28.05.2018 along with the instrument. While obtaining the landline connection from the opposite party, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- as refundable caution money with the opposite party. But the opposite party did not refund the said refundable caution money within stipulated period as per Telecom law. Prior to surrender the landline number with instrument, the complainant cleared all the dues of Rs.206/- on 02.07.2018. When no step taken by the opposite party to refund the caution money, on 06.09.2019 the Complainant has issued a self-demand notice to the opposite party through email:dgmcmber@bsnl.co.in. To redress the grievance, the complainant also approached the State Consumer Advice Centre, Bhubaneswar which was docketed as ORS/CO/2019/4627. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint for deficiency in services of the opposite party as not refunded the caution money to him and prayed as above.
3. The Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party.
4. Duly acknowledging the notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed its written version through their Advocate. The opposite party submitted that, the complainant has surrendered his landline number 06822-273508 along with the instrument on 28.05.2018. The opposite party further submitted in their written version that, the complainant only submitted the application for closure of the telephone line w.e.f. 28.05.2018 and he himself surrendered the telephone instrument with the sub divisional officer of Telephone Department at Aska on 28.05.2018 and the same has been acknowledged. The complainant he himself voluntarily surrendered the instrument and asked to close the telephone line but he never made an application to dismantle the supply line for all time to come and as such he is bound and liable to pay such charges with the opposite party and the opposite party is entitled to make adjustment and deduction of such charges from and out of the refundable security deposit. The opposite party repeatedly requested the complainant to attend the office to settle the accounts under the heads of claims or counter claims of both the parties. The receipt dated:02.07.2018 is only covered under the arrears of the land line consumption/uses charges and not towards full and final settlement of the accounts. The contention of the complainant regarding issue of notice on 06.09.2019 through email and through State Consumer Advice Centre, Bhubaneswar vide docketed no:ORS/CO/2019/4627, dated;13.09.2019 are not based on truthful aspects. The opposite party is not in a position to ignore any kind of grievances of its constituents/customers. It is well settled that after surrendering of the land line along with complete delivery of the instrument in the office on 28.05.2018, all the relationship of providing service by the BSNK office to the complainant and such relationship has been seized to have in existence or subsistence since 28.05.2018. The opposite party stated that, the security deposit of the sum of Rs.2000/- lying with the opposite party as a caution money at the time of sanctioning land 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 out of the said caution money and if balance any outstanding comes to last to be refunded to the customer/complaint but not as of right seeking demand for refund of total caution money of Rs.2000/-. 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 as well the instrument. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the proceeding with compensatory costs.
5. On the date of hearing the Advocate for both the parties 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 party 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 on 28.05.2018 and the Opposite party issued a receipt regarding payment of all dues on 02.07.2018.
It is also revealed that, the opposite party in the present case did not refund the security deposit after adjustment of dues within said stipulated time period and for which the complainant prefer the present complaint. 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 against the opposite party on contest. The opposite party is directed to refund the security deposit of Rs.2000/- along with 10% per annum with effect from 28.07.2018 till actual date of payment and the opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1500/- 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 16.10.2019 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 27.02.2024
