DATE OF FILING : 22.08.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 29.01.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18.03.2016.
Sri Pabitra Ranjan Datta,
son of late Ramani Ranjan Datta,
residing at 137, Chakpara (R.K. Colony ),
P.O. Bhattanagar, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711203. …………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Mr. C.P. Joshi,
Vice President,
Customer Service, Vodafone East Limited,
Dlfit Park, Block AF, 15th floor,
8, Major Arterial Road, New Town,
Rajarhat, P.S. New Town,
Kolkata 700 156 and also office at
M.G. Road, P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ………... ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, against the o.p., Vice President, Customer Service, Vodafone East Limited, praying for directing the o.p. to allow the petitioner to enjoy OTR Plan and sent monthly bills month by month and to pay special attention to senior citizen and to pay Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer of the o.p. having Vodafone no. 9830881908 SIM 1 with one time rental plan renewal and pre paid no. 8820543616 for SIM no. 2. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,011/- on 15.05.2014 as advance tariff charges for getting previous benefit under the scheme GPRS VL + VMC @ 199/- for monthly charges. He received a message in his mobile for making payment of Rs. 74.66 p. for June, 2014 and net due of Rs. 1,103.50 p. even if he paid Rs. 1,011/- on 15.05.2014 as advance under the scheme GPRS VL + VMC @ Rs. 199/- for monthly charges.
- On 12.7.2014 he again received another message showing current bill charges of Rs. l082.02 p. in July, 2014. The petitioner served a notice on 13.7.2014 upon the o.p. claiming relief but no effect. The o.p. deliberately harassed the petitioner being a senior citizen 72 years and the o.p. is guilty of gross negligence of their part and also there is deficiency in service for which the petitioner suffered and is entitled to compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case is not maintainable before this Forum as per the law declared by the Supreme Court which shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The o.p. has come across the letter dated 04.02.2014 of Department of Tele Communication regarding jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complaint is a mala fide one and is liable to be dismissed as the case is not maintainable. They further submitted the present petitioner paid Rs. 1,011/- on 15.5.2014 on account of OTR which ensures no monthly charges for next 12 monthly billing cycle and not as an advance for getting the benefit under GPRS @ Rs. 199/- which is a separate plan altogether. The said GPRS is a separate plan altogether having no connection with OTR Plan. They submitted that under said OTR Plan monthly charges would not be levied but other charges like call charges etc. would be charged from the customer. The petitioner has got the OTR and he would get the benefit as would be evident from the invoices dated 10.06.2014, 10.7.2014 and 10.8.2014. The bills were never sent to the petitioner for rental charges. In the instant case also the petition be dismissed with costs.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner, Prabitra Ranjan Dutta, filed affidavit as well as documents in the form of telephone bills for the period 10.4.2015 to 09.6.2015. He also filed a copy of his letter dated 11.11.2013 sent to the Manager, Customer Service, Vodafone East Limited, and his money receipt that for the year 2015 he paid Rs. 1,011/-. He also filed one document sent to him by Tania Banerjee, Vodafone Customer Services Ltd., informing about one time rental plan on Vodafone wherein he has to pay Rs. 1,011.24 p. He also produced copies of the message informing him about his phone. Ld. counsel further submitted that the acts of the telephone authority caused harassment to the petitioner even though he is a consumer of one time payment phone. The counsel for the o.ps. also conceded the petitioner is a consumer kof one time payment scheme made in one month for the rest 11 months when he need not pay any thing. In the instant case also the phone was taken on 15.5.2014on one time rental and there was no rental charges claim in the June, July bills and the only claim was roaming charges and others. Thus actually there was no cause of action on the part of the petitioner to file this case. Ld. counsel also submitted that in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. N. Krishnan and another our Supreme Court in the year 2009 opined that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as U/S 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act the dispute shall be determined by Arbitration and shall be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government and so this claim petition of the petitioner be dismissed with costs. The petitioner referred before this Forum a judgment of our National Commission dated 02.05.2014 wherein the National Commission opined that in the case of M. Krishnan it was clarified that the said dispute involved between Department of Tele Communication ( DOT ) which was a Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act as a service provider but such power of the Telegraph Authority are not now vested with the private telecom service like BSNL and so the Forum constituted under the C.P. Act, 1986 are competent to entertain the dispute between the individual telecom consumer and Telecom Service Provider as Section 7B of the said Act will have no application as in the case of private service provider. In the said judgment the National Commission mentioned the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Vs. M. Krishnan and another and decided that at present the Forum have jurisdiction to entertain disputes between the service providers and the individual telecom service provider.
- This Forum kept in mind the present position of law and the submissions of the ld. Counsel of both sides and the contents of the present dispute and find that in the instant case the petitioner, Pabitra Ranjan Datta, filed this case stating that he was a telecom service consumer under the OTR Scheme and he was supposed to make any payment for the rest 11 months under the said scheme but the o.p. sent him bills in the month of July & July mentioning net due of Rs. 1,103.50 p. and Rs. 1,082.02 p. respectively. Even though he made no payment for such bill but as a senior citizen he claimed compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him in the hands of service provider and so filed this case. The ‘word’ compensation means the money equivalent of the loss or injury suffered by the petitioner and the District Forum can award compensation for any injury or loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the negligence of the o.p. and the claim of the petitioner must be substantiated by sufficient evidence. Thus the compensation has to be assessed not arbitrarily but on the basis of well accepted legal principle.
- In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh our Supreme Court while formulating a guideline as to how the Consumer Fora should assess compensation and opined that compensation is wide connotation and it has not been denied in the Act and thus as per dictionary compensation means being compensated. Thus, while awarding compensation the Forum has to assess the actual loss or accepted loss of the petitioner which may be physical and mental or even emotional suffering or insult or injury of loss. In the instant case the petitioner simply received two telephone bills wherein there was mentioned of an amount which were never paid by the petitioner and when the o.ps. being service provider submitted that the telephone connection of the petitioner was under the one time rental scheme and he was never asked to pay for the rental charges but the other charges like call charges etc. would be charged from the customer. The petitioner should get the benefit of the OTR claim as would be noticed from the invoices dated 10.07.2014 and 10.8.2014 wherein the amount due shown was ( - ) 1103.50 p. and thus there was no question of making payment because in the other two bills the amount due were ( - ) Rs. 21.48 p. and Rs. 0.54 p. Thus, there was no question of making any payment by him.
- In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the o.p. being a private telecom service provider is well within the jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Another and said decision is not applicable in the case of private service provider that under 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, dispute is to be sent to the Arbitrator as our National Commission opined on 02.5.2014 discussing the judgment of M. Krishnan. However, the petitioner having suffered no injury or loss as he has been enjoying the one time rental scheme. So he need not make payment of any rent but he has to pay for call charges and other charges for which he cannot get any excuse in the absence of any injury or loss or monetary payment made by the petitioner this Forum finds no reason to entertain his plea of compensation.
In the result, the claim case fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 466 of 2014 ( HDF 466 of 2014 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
