BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2024
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1953/2017
1. | The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The Accounts Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore. (By Sri A.N. Gangadharaiah, Advocate) | |
V/s
Sri Lalith Kumar Kothri.M., No.1478 K-1, Manka Sadana, 3rd Cross, Thyagaraja Road, NR Mohalla, Mysore – 24. (By Sri S.D.N. Prasad, Advocate) | ……Respondent/s |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.07.2017 passed in CC.No.1303/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen and has availed the telephone connection i.e., landline connection from the Opposite Parties department. It is further submitted that the complainant has availed the annual plan from the past 3 years and the same is continued for the period 2016-17 also with effect from 01.02.2016 to 31.01.2017 and as per the bill raised by the Opposite Parties department a sum of Rs.1,330/- is paid by the complainant. There are no arrears from the complainant side towards the bill raised by the Opposite Parties department. It is further submitted that there is one more landline connection with telephone number 2448082 has been availed by the complainant’s son Mr.Praveen Kumar with same annual plan from the past 3 years and the same is continued for the period 2016-2017 also with effect from 01.02.2016 to 31.01.2017 and as per the bill raised by the Opposite Parties department a sum of Rs.1,294/- is paid by the complainant son.
3. It is further submitted that without intimating the complainant and also without taking the consent of the complainant, the Opposite Parties department has changed the plan for the connection availed by the complainant in the bill has been sent for the period 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 this is a shock for the complainant and he enquired about the change in the plan and also lodged an oral complaint with the officials of the Opposite Parties department. But, till date no action has been taken from the department in rectifying the mistake. Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but, they neither complied the same nor chosen to give any reply to it. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed version and Opposite Party No.2 placed exparte. The Opposite Party No.1 in the version contended that the complaint is prima-facie not maintainable either in law or non facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. As per the latest orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the subject matter of dispute is required to be referred to arbitration, which is statutory remedy under the terms and conditions of the contract. It is respectfully submitted that in matters of tariff plans of landline connection this Opposite Party is merely implementing agency of the tariff plans and has no power to alter, relax and extend any benefits and as sought in the complaint. The complainant was also duly intimated by the concerned office of his area i.e. Customer Service Center CTO Mysore and his concurrence was obtained orally and the plan was changed as one India plan. There is no objection made by the complainant, immediately, for the change made in the tariff plan. There is no deficiency in service, the subject matter of the complaint is essentially a billing issue in nature, thus, the complaint is beyond the purview of this Commission and deserves to be dismissed.
5. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaints and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- costs. In default, the said amount shall carry interest at 10% p.a. from the date of Order, till payment.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal seeking reliefs as prayed in the complaints.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has availed landline connection from the Opposite Party department with a telephone No.32448072, Customer ID No.4009233022 since more than 10 years. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has availed the annual plan from the past three years and same is continued for the period from 2016-2017 and there is no any arrears from the complainant towards the bill. It is also an admitted fact that one more landline connection with telephone No.2448082 has been availed by the complainant son Mr.Praveen Kumar with some annual plan for a period 2016-2017 and the same plan is continued bill this day.
8. The allegation of the respondent is that without any intimation to the respondent and without taking the consent of the respondent, the appellants have changed the tariff plan for the connection availed by the respondent. Per contra, the appellant submitted that the old plan is scrapped and in its place new ‘One India Plan’ was introduced and it is only one plan for landline connection. Further, annual plan to the respondent was withdrawn with due intimation and only after the consent of the respondent.
9. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the appellants to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as costs. The District Commission observed that ‘since it is a policy matter which cannot be questioned here that the FORA has no power, authority to interfere in policy making decision. Hence, the question of granting any relief beyond its scope is not permitted under Law’ and dismissed the prayer of the respondent that continuation of annual plan. We agree with the Order passed by the District Commission because changing the tariff plan is Government policy decision and as per policy, the Government has scrapped the old plan and new plan ‘One India Plan’ was introduced. Hence, this Commission cannot questioned about the policy decision here. However, when the appellants have taken decision to change the tariff plan, it is the bounden duty of the appellant to intimate and take the consent of the respondent. The appellants contended that they have orally intimated the respondent and took the consent, but, they failed to prove the same by documentary evidence and without documentary evidence, this Commission cannot believe the contention of the appellants.
10. In the written arguments, the respondent stated that he himself and his son availed landline connection with annual plan for a period from 2016-2017 and even today the respondent’s son is enjoying the old annual plan in the same place which is admitted by the appellants. Such being the case, the appellants have to give satisfactory reasons for such. However, the appellants contended that the plans are withdrawn in a phased manner. The appellants have not produced relevant documents to show that the plans are withdrawn in phased manner. The respondent and his son are residing at the same place. Then what is the reason to change the tariff plan only for the respondent for which there is no clarification from the appellants. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the District Commission has rightly awarded the compensation for deficiency in service to the respondent. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
