C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/100
COMPLAINANT : Subrata Saha,
S/o Late Bangshibadan Saha,
Vill. Khidirpur, Saratpally,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : J.T.O,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Bethuadahari Telephone Exchange,
P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 27th January, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a telephone subscriber under the OP having telephone No. BUH256374 and he usually pays all the bills raised by the OP. It is his further case that since 22.07.10 the telephone connection has been disconnected. On 10.08.10 he sent a letter requesting the OP to reconnect the line, but to no effect. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP BSNL, Bethuadahari has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant is a subscriber of telephone under BSNL being consumer No. 55250 with telephone No. BUH 256374. It is his submission also that the complainant deposited the disputed bills in Post Office and Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Khidirpur Branch respectively and it is the duty of the post office as well as bank to intimate the telephone department regarding payment of the bills of the complainant. But as they did not report regarding that payment in due time, so due to nonpayment of the bills as per order of the A.O. (T.R.) the telephone line was disconnected. It is the duty of the complainant subscriber also to intimate this OP regarding payment of his bill as in the disputed bill dtd. 05.08.10 the outstanding amount was shown as Rs. 611/- and in the bill dtd. 05.12.09 the outstanding amount was shown Rs. 313/-. But the complainant did not submit particulars of the payment of the above noted bills before this OP, even at the time of filing his application for reconnection of the bills. So this OP has no deficiency in service for disconnecting the telephone line. He also submits that as per written order of the A.O. dtd. 19.11.10 the reconnection of the concerned telephone was given to the complainant. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant is a consumer subscriber under the OP with regard to telephone connection No. BUH256374. From the written version as well as submission of the ld. lawyer for the OP we find that the complainant regularly paid all the bills, but those bills were paid through Post Office and Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Khidirpur Branch who did not intimate the OP regarding the payment of the bills by the complainant. As a result of this, non-payment was recorded and the telephone line was disconnected. The OP also submits that it is the duty of the complainant also to intimate about the payment of the bills when in his disputed bills dtd. 05.08.10 and 05.12.09 bill amount was shown as outstanding. The Post Office and the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Khidirpur Branch are the collecting agents of the telephone bill on behalf of the OP BSNL and it is their duty to submit the payment statement to the OP in time. But at the same time OP is to enquire whether the bills were actually paid by the subscriber or not in due time and without any enquiry he should not disconnect the telephone line. He cannot shift his burden upon a subscriber who actually paid the bills to the OP’s authorized agent. Practically the telephone line was disconnected having no fault on the part of the complainant subscriber. On this score we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP BSNL. The telephone line was reconnected on 19.11.10 which was disconnected on 10.08.10. The complainant subscriber could not enjoy the facility of telephone during this period having no fault on his side. The OP cannot claim any charge for this period.
In view of above discussion and considering the facts of this case our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case. So he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/100 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed not to charge any amount by sending any bill to the complainant for the period on and from 10.08.10 to 19.11.10 as the telephone was disconnected at that time. The complainant is allowed to get compensation amounting to Rs. 3,000/- for harassment and mental agony caused to him + litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The OP is also directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realisation of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
