1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL)

2.General Manager, GMTD, Shillong                               ....... Appellants

                                                     Versus

Shri Saumitra Nath, Shillong                                            ....... Respondent

Date of Judgment                         :     20.06.2014

Judgment & Order

1.         Per : Mr. Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member: This Appeal arises from the order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2004, whereby a meagre sum of Rs.3453/- was awarded to the Complainant. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party. None appears for the Respondent / Complainant. Perused the records.

2.         5 (five) district instances of deficiency in service on the part of BSNL were raised by the Complainant in his Complaint and compensation to the tune of Rs.38,000/- on various counts was sought. These are reproduced below:

1. That as per rules of Cellone, application fee Rs.500/- and SIM activation fee Rs.200/- will have to be adjusted in first subsequent Bills, but it is very unfortunate to state that after repeated request vide application to CAO, BSNL and several personal visit to the GMTD office, the amount of Rs.700/- still has not been adjusted even after the timely payment of 7^th bill i.e. Bill for the month of Sep’04.

1. Meanwhile I applied for the itemized bill for the month of March ’04 only with a charge of Rs.50/- mentioning in my application itself, but BSNL starts sending detail Bill from the month of April’04 onwards for 3 subsequent bills charging an amount of Rs.100/- extra in each occasion ignoring my requirement of only one month. Later on, again after various requests and applications to BSNL, the practice was stopped somehow with an additional amount of Rs.300/- (Rs.100/- ×3) billed on me.

1. While going through the above detail bill, I  was surprised to find that some of the incoming and outgoing calls are charged twice with an appropriate excess bill of Rs.153/- (as enclosed). Moreover, calls made on March are again charged in the Bill of April also. The same was brought into notice of various BSNL officers including CAO and DGM (Mobile) vide several applications and complaints over Fax, but this time also it is very sorry to state that due to extreme negligence to their duties the excess amount was still not refunded to me even after 8 months of service period.

1. That an amount of Rs.100/- is charged as late fee in the Bills of May as well as in September even after the timely payment of each previous Bills much before the due date of payment. On repeated telephonic requests, complaints and several personal visits to the BSNL office taking leave from my workplace, CAO agreed to rectify the late fee amount in each occasion. However a total amount of Rs.1828/- is still showing as due in the latest Bill (7^th) i.e. Bill for Sept’04, the reason for which I really failed to understand.

1. That as per Plan 325/- of Cellone, subscribers has to give a Loyalty discount of Rs.75/- in call charge above rental charge from 6^th bill onwards. In spite of giving a reminder application to CAO, BSNL dated 22.09.2004, one month in advance of my 7^th Bill, the BSNL personnel’s are very reluctant to provide such discount in call charges simply denying the matter when I requested to CAO over telephone on 03.11.2004. They are simply denying the responsibility by saying that all billings are done from BSNL, Kolkata office, so they are helpless in this regard showing highly irresponsible and negligence to their duties towards the fellow customers.

3.         The findings / decision of the District Forum on each of the aforementioned 5(Five) issues are that other than Issue No.3 relating to double billing and Issue No.2 relating to over-charge on account of supply of itemized bill for three months instead of one month as asked for by the Complainant, the other issues have been settled by BSNL, albeit with some delay, after the complaint was filed.

4.         Upon proper application of mind, the District Forum was of the opinion that the Complainant had surely faced some harassment at the hands of the Appellant / Opposite Party as he had to run from pillar to post to rectify his bills. However, his claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.38,000/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand) was not found convincing or appropriate and the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for mental harassment, mental agony and costs to the Complainant with a direction that the OP BSNL refund the amount charged double @ RS.153/- (Rupees one hundred and fifty three) and also Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred) on account of overcharge in respect of supply of itemized bills, making a total of Rs.3,453/- (Rupees three thousand four hundred and fifty three ) as total compensation.

5.         The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants are reproduced below:

1. For that the learned District Forum has committed grave error in awarding compensation for the alleged harassment etc. without appreciating the fact that the telephone facility was never withdrawn or was inoperative.

1. For that allegations made by the Complainant is highly technical in nature and the Appellant corporation had done all that practicable, within its limitation, to render best possible service to the subscriber and as such the awarding of the compensation and the cost of the suit besides being unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case is unjust and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

1. For that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the occasional jamming of the service is attributable to the very large network to be maintained by the appellant and most of them are mechanical in nature and as such the same cannot be expected to be rectified instantaneously.

1. For that the awarding of compensation for alleged harassment and mental agony is not justified in as much as appellant had responded to the complaint with utmost promptness and as such the observation of the learned District Forum is inappropriate, not warranted under the fact and circumstances of the case and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

1. For that the learned District Forum has erred both in law and fact in awarding the compensation and as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside and quashed.

1. For that in any view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is bad in law, justice and equity, and as such the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.         As can be seen, the grounds are of general nature and nothing specific has been brought before us to convince us that the order passed by the District Forum calls for any interference. The Appeal appears to have been filed in a routine manner even though no legal principle is involved and the award is only for a sum of Rs.3,453/- that too based on a specific finding of deficiency in service.

7.         The Appellant has admitted the fact of double billing but has ascribed it to ‘technical fault’ in the following words: “In the case in hand the error in recording a call twice in a computerized billing system, that too covering 8 states by the only billing centre at Kolkata is due to the technical fault such as availability of microwave transmission amongst others”. In their Show Cause BSNL stated that the Complainant ‘has miserably failed to point out a single instance of deficiencies of service or any shortcoming attributable to human failure and error’. While this is tantamount to an admission of fault, we are of the clear view that  even if deficiency in service arises from mechanical reasons it does not relieve them of their responsibilities, as BSNL is obviously trying to claim. As long as there is deficiency it matters little whether the cause is human or mechanical as long as it is completely beyond human control which, in this case, it is not.

We also find it significant to that note the issues raised by the Complainant in his complaint, other than Issue Nos. 2 & 3 which still remained to be rectified, were attended to by BSNL only after the complaint was filed before the District Forum and such subsequent rectification cannot absolve BSNL of the charge of deficiency in service.

8.         Having thus applied our mind to the matter, we therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and we dismiss the Appeal. As the Respondent has not appeared either in person or through counsel we refrain from imposing any costs.

9.         It would be proper to state here before concluding that BSNL had raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in General Manager (Telecom) Vs M. Krishnan (AIR 2010 SC 90). The preliminary objection was heard at length and by order dated 25.02.2014 this Commission held in favour of the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. This issue having been settled, hearing on merits of the Appeal was proceeded with.

10.       The Appeal is disposed of. Return the District Forum case records.

            SENIOR MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT