IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 05th day of June , 2020
Filed on 08.07.2016
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.229/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Shyamprasad 1. Junior Telecom Officer
Kesava Nivas Kaichoondi Telecphone Exchange.
Thriveni Junction Avalookkunnu.P.O, Alappuzha
Avalookkunnu.P.O
Alappuzha-6 2. General Manager
BSNL, Pichu Iyyer Junction
Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1. Complainant’s case in brief are as follows:-
Earlier complainant was employed in Mumbai and from 2012 onwards is residing at Alappuzha. While in Mumbai he had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the BSNL for a land phone connection. Till last 6 months he was using the phone and paying the amount. Since the amount of bill is more, he informed the opposite party to disconnect the phone and it was told that there is arrears to the tune of Rs. 2400/-. He requested the opposite parties to deduct the same from the deposit amount of Rs.10,000/-. It was informed that the entire deposit amount was adjusted in the bill
amount and now there is no deposit amount. Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to return an amount of Rs.7600/-, for an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 3000/- as cost.
2. Opposite parties filed version mainly containing as follows.
Complaint is not maintainable and all the allegations are incorrect and untenable. Rule 413 of the Telegraph act. provides that all services relating to Telephone services are subjected to telegraph rules. There is a special remedy provided under Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph act. regarding disputes in respect of Telephone bills, Telephone lines, appliances between the Telegraph authority and the person in whose benefit the line or appliances or the apparatus has been provided. Such disputes shall be determined and be decided by an arbitrator. The dispute in this matter has to be decided by an arbitrator and not by this Forum.
Land line connection was provided to the complainant as early in the year 1995 under Own Your Telephone (OYT) scheme. Under the said scheme the applicant shall make an advance lump sum payment in the form of advance deposit. The complainant who was provided land phone connection under OYT scheme had deposited an amount of Rs. 10000/- on 16.3.1995 as OYT interest free deposit and land line connection was provided to him on 25/11/1995. The complainant an OYT subscriber was getting a rebate in every phone bill and he paid rent at a lesser rate than the fixed rent. An amount of Rs. 80/- was deducted from his bi monthly bill for a period of 20 years commencing from 11/1995 till10/2015. There after the balance amount available in his deposit was Rs. 30/-. The complainant was paying monthly rent at a lesser rate than the normal rate during the past 20 years. Interest free deposit made for OYT connection would expire after a period of 20 years since a deduction is made in ever y bill during that period of 20 years. Ignoring and suppressing this pertinent fact the complainant has filed the complaint claiming deposit amount.
The allegation regarding the excess billing is also incorrect. The complainant has used the land phone connection up to 22/12/2015 and outgoing calls were metered till then. On account of the nonpayment of bill amount since 9/12/2015 the outgoing calls were barred on 22/12/2015. Even thereafter he was getting incoming calls till 25/1/2016. Due to the nonpayment of bill amount the phone was disconnected on that day. The complainant is liable to pay rent till 25/1/2016.
The claim of the complainant to get refund of the deposit amount after deducting the bill arrears of Rs. 2,400/- is not acceptable since the entire amount has been returned. There is material suppression of facts to mislead this Forum and to get an order to evade payment of the bill amount. Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
2. On the above pleadings following points arose for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 7,600/- after deducting Rs. 2,400/- from the deposit Rs.10,000/- as prayed for ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as compensation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as costs?
4. Reliefs and costs?
3. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 on the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite party.
4. Point no. 1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together. The complainant filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A3. The case of the complainant is that during 1995 he deposited an amount of Rs. 10000/- with the BSNL and availed an OYT connection. He was using the phone for about 20 years and thereafter he requested the opposite party to disconnect the connection. Opposite party informed that there is arrears to the tune of Rs. 2400/-. Complainant informed to return Rs. 7600/- after deducting the bill amount which was not acceptable to the BSNL. Hence the complaint was filed for realizing an amount or Rs. 7600/- along with other reliefs. Opposite party filed version contenting that as per OYT scheme Rs.10000/- is an interest fee deposit. An amount of Rs. 80/- will be deducted from the bi monthly bill and after 20 years the entire deposited amount of Rs. 10000/- will be wiped off. So according to them no amount is due to the complainant. It was also contended that the complaint before this forum is not maintainable since u/s
7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. it is to be referred to an arbitrator. On the side of the opposite parties accounts Officer of BSNL filed an affidavit and marked as Ext.B1 to B4. Ext.A1 series are bills issued to the complainant on various periods. Ext.A3 is the copy of demand note issued to the complainant on 16/3/1995 for Rs. 10000/-. When examined before court PW1 reiterated the complaint claim and denied the contention of the opposite party that Rs. 80/- each was deducted from the bi monthly bills. Ext.B1 is the copy of orders of Telephone allotment rules. As per definition 1.4 OYT scheme it is stated that this is a scheme under which an applicant makes an advance lumpsum payment in the form of advance payment of part of the rent for certain number of years. The subscriber gets a rebate and is liable to pay less rent than normal rent fixed by the department. Ext.B2 is the registration fee for OYT/NOYT connection. As per Note 3. bimonthly rebate on OYT @ of Rs.8/- for every Rs.1000/- OYT. For instance Rs.10000/- OYT Rs.80/- rebate in bimonthly bills for a period of 20 years. Ext.B3 is the copy of statement of account from 1/3/2013, 1/3/2016. From Ext.A3 it is seen that Rs. 80/- bimonthly was deducted from the rent up to 7/1/2015. So from the discussion made above it is pellucid that complainant was given rebate of Rs. 80/- on bimonthly bills for a period of 20 years. It is clearly stated in Ext.B2 and B3. As discussed earlier complainant availed a connection during 1995 and 20 years was completed during 2005. So the entire amount deposited was adjusted in the rent and now complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. In the said circumstances it can be seen that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties
complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint, and so the points are found against the complainant.
Relying upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom Vs. N. Krishnan it was contend by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that this forum has no jurisdiction. Dispute has to be referred to an arbitrator u/s 7.B of the Indian Telegraph Act. However based on materials on records it can be seen that complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
5. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- as cost to the opposite party.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 05th day of June, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R.(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Pw1 - Shyamprasad (Witness)
Ext.A1series - Bills in various periods.
Ext.A2 - Copy of Receipt dtd.16/3/1995
Ext.A3 - Copy of Demand Note dtd. 16/3/1995.
Ext.A4 - Telephone bill dtd. 5/5/2017
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sherly Ajith(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of orders of Telephone Allotment rules.
Ext.B2 - Copy of Registration Fee for OYT/NOYT connection.
Ext.B3 - Copy of Statement of Account dtd. 1/3/2013 to 1/3/2016
Ext.B4 - Copy of Paid bill records.
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
