Tripura

StateCommission

A/38/2018

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Shyamal Kanti Deb - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Kakali Deb , Miss. Ananya Deb

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A.38.2018

 

 

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Having its Registered Office at Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,

H.C. Mathur Lane,

Janapath, New Delhi - 110001

[Represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director].

 

2. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

North Eastern Circle, Agartala Region,

Office at Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.

                                                ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

                                                         

        Vs

 

 

 

1. Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb,

S/o Late Upendra Ch. Deb,

Block No.9, Quarter No. IV/13,

Malancha Niwas Govt. Quarter Complex,

Kunjaban, Agartala, P.S. N.C.C.,

Pin: 799006, West Tripura.

….    ….    ….   Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

For the Appellants:                            Mrs. Kakali Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent:                          Mr. Gitangshur Sekhar Das, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 08.04.2019.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

Both these appeals have been filed by the appellants, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another against the judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 07 of 2018 as well as the judgment dated 19.12.2018 in Case No. C.C. 28 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petitions.    

As the facts involved in both the cases are similar and the questions of law involved are also same, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mrs. Kakali Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/BSNL) as well as Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 dated 09.10.2018:-

Respondent-complainant, Sri Shyamal Kanti Deb filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that he got the mobile phone with the BSNL Postpaid SIM Card being Mobile No.9436125112 in the year 2005-2006. Bill dated 05.01.2018 for the period from 1^st December, 2017 to 31^st December, 2017 was raised for an amount of Rs.3156.40, which according to him, was abnormal in comparison to previous bills received by him. So, he met with the Office of the opposite party no.2 i.e. General Manager, BSNL, North Eastern Circle, Agartala Region who assured him that the allegation will be considered. So, entire bill was paid by him on 26.01.2018, but even after making payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3156.40, the connection was withdrawn by the BSNL. Though it was told that disconnected was made by mistake, the connection was not restored. Respondent-complainant holding the post of General Manager of TIDC used the mobile for his official purpose. So, for this disconnection, he suffered much and claimed compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4. The opposite parties, BSNL Authority i.e. the appellant herein, appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the respondent-complainant. It is stated in the written statement that the complainant paid the bill amount on 26.01.2018 though the last date for payment of the bill was on 25.01.2018. Disconnection was made by the Central Billing System automatically on 26.01.2018 for excess of credit limit as the respondent-complainant did not pay the money within the due time. Before disconnection, SMS was sent by system to the respondent-complainant i.e. the customer. Disconnection was made by mistake, as said by the respondent-complainant is not correct. Thus, the respondent-complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points for determination of the disputes which are as follows:-

1. Whether the disconnection made by the BSNL was improper and deficiency of service?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

6. Respondent-complainant produced the copy of letter dated 03.04.2018, copy of order dated 13.04.2018, BSNL bill, Message, letter to General Manager by him. He also submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.
7. Opposite parties, on the other hand, produced the threshold report showing the excess/crossing of credit limit, bill with details and call records. One Sri Samir Das, Authorized Representative of BSNL filed his examination-in-chief and also cross-examined.
8. On the basis of the evidence available, the learned District Forum directed the BSNL Authority to receive Rs.1,000/- per month from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 and also directed to receive the bill of Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.14,275/- (sic) as shown for one month. The learned District Forum further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service to the respondent-complainant as well as Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, in total Rs.20,000/- and the respondent-complainant is to pay the bill amount Rs.2,000/- in place of the claim made by the opposite parties. The judgment has to be complied within two months, if not; the compensation amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

 

9. Case No.C.C.28 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018:-

Respondent-complainant filed another application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum for getting compensation and restoration of the mobile connection and also to raise the actual mobile bill as per consumption.

Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Respondent-complainant being a consumer under the opposite parties having a postpaid mobile connection as stated (supra) filed one case before the learned District Forum which was registered as C.C.07 of 2018 subject matter of which was a bill amounting to Rs.3156.40 which according to the respondent-complainant, was abnormally high in comparison to the previous bills. During the pendency of that case, the respondent-complainant received two bills dated 05.02.2018 and 05.03.2018 amounting to Rs.12,021.35 and Rs.13,079.43 respectively. In this complaint, the respondent-complainant had challenged the aforesaid two bills. In his complaint, he had stated that after getting the bill dated 05.02.2018, he sent a letter to the opposite party no.2 i.e. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., North Eastern Circle, Agartala Region on 23.02.2018 with a request to provide him detailed break-up of the bills and also not to disconnect the mobile connection till disposal of the complaint, but the opposite party without responding to the letter disconnected the mobile connection in spite of a standing order passed by the learned District Forum dated 03.04.2018 in case No.C.C.07 of 2018. The respondent-complainant further stated in the complaint that on 08.03.2018, he again wrote a letter to the opposite party no.2 requesting him to provide detailed break-up of the mobile bill dated 05.03.2018 amounting to Rs.13,079.43, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the respondent-complainant. The respondent-complainant also stated in his complaint that his mobile phone was again disconnected on 12.04.2018 violating the order of the learned District Forum as the case was before the learned District Forum due to repeated disconnection of his mobile. The respondent-complainant suffered a lot and for which he claimed compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.

10. Opposite parties, BSNL have appeared and submitted their written statement denying the allegations of the respondent-complainant. Opposite parties in their written statement specifically stated that the bill dated 05.02.2018 is correct and that the bill has been raised as per the usage of the billing period and in the bill, the call details were also shown. It is also stated that as per Jeevan Sathi Scheme, mobile No.9436928097 in the name of his wife is connected with the complainant's mobile No.9436125112 and that on 11.01.2018, the post paid plan 325 against the mobile which was being used by the respondent-complainant had been converted to plan 525. It is further stated that in plan 525 free voice call is Rs.450/- and that total usage unit in the mobile of the respondent-complainant had been calculated as Rs.22,093.90 and after making deduction of the benefits as provided by the opposite parties, the amount payable by the respondent-complainant comes to Rs.13,239.62. According to the opposite parties, the bill amount raised by them of Rs.13,079/- is also genuine. The opposite parties have denied violation of order of the learned District Forum dated 03.04.2018 as the disconnection in the mobile of the respondent-complainant had occurred on account of the billing system which was showing dues to be paid by the respondent-complainant against  his pending bills. It is the further case of the opposite parties that detailed bill as asked for by the respondent-complainant had been generated and the same is available with the opposite party no.2. According to the opposite parties, the respondent-complainant as a customer has to collect the detailed bill from the Office of the BSNL, Agartala as there is no mechanism in the BSNL for sending the detailed bill by post to the complainant.
11. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points to decide the case:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps towards the Complainant?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation?

12. The respondent-complainant has produced copy of mobile bill dated 05.02.2018 for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018, copy of letter dated 23.02.2018 given by him addressed to the opposite party no.2 and copy of letter dated 08.03.2018 given by him addressed to the aforesaid opposite party no.2. He also submitted his examination-in-chief and also examined himself as P.W.1.
13. Opposite parties, on the other hand, have produced copy of mobile bill dated 05.02.2018, call list of mobile Nos.9436125112 and 9436928097 and also examined one witness Sri Samir Das, the Authorized representative of the opposite parties who was examined as O.P.W.1.
14. Considering the evidence on record, the learned District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation, in total Rs.11,000/-. The learned District Forum also directed the complainant to pay the bill amount of Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.12,021.35 as claimed by the opposite parties. Both the opposite parties are directed to comply with the judgment within two months, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made.
15. Mrs. Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants-BSNL submits that the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 considered almost all the bills including the bills for which the respondent-complainant filed his subsequent complaint which was registered as Case No.C.C.28 of 2018. She further submits that when the grievance of the respondent-complainant in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 is regarding the bill for the period from 1^st December, 2017 to 31^st December, 2017, but the learned District Forum in its judgment considered the subsequent bills which will be evident from Paragraph-8 of the judgment in C.C.07 of 2018. She again submits that when admittedly, the credit limit for the respondent-complainant was Rs.2,536/- and he crossed the credit limit by using his mobile without paying the bill. Thus disconnection of his mobile, which was done automatically by the system, is correct. She has again contended that Court has no power to ask the BSNL Authority to receive Rs.1,000/- instead of the bill amount mentioned in the bill. She has taken us to the bill dated 03.02.2018 for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018 wherein the bill amount mentioned was of Rs.12,021.35 whereas the learned District Forum mentioned of Rs.14,275/- that itself shows that the learned District Forum did not apply its mind. Therefore, she urged for setting aside the impugned judgment in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 as well as C.C.28 of 2018, she submits that the learned District Forum ought not to have entertained the subsequent complaint petition filed by the respondent-complainant which was registered as C.C.28 of 2018 as the subject matter of the complaint has already been decided by the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.07/2018.
16. Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel in his usual fairness submits that in the judgment dated 09.10.2018 in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018, the learned District Forum wrongly mentioned some amount and also considered the bill relating to the period from 1^st January, 2018 to 31^st January, 2018 as well as 1^st February, 2018 to 28^th February, 2018 which was improper as the subject matter of the case was only relating to the bill dated 05.01.2018 for the period from 1^st December, 2017 to 31^st December, 2017 amounting to Rs.3,156.40. He has also submitted that it would be proper for this Commission to remand both the cases i.e. C.C.07 of 2018 and C.C.28 of 2018 to the learned District Forum after setting aside the impugned judgments for deciding the cases afresh. He finally submits that the learned District Forum ought to have decided both the cases together.
17.  We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 considered the case beyond the record. Not only that, the learned District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction while asking the opposite parties to receive Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.14,275/- (sic) actually which would be Rs.12,021.35. The learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.28 of 2018 decided the case of the respondent-complainant regarding the bill amount of Rs.12,021.35 for the period from 1^st January to 31^st January, 2018, which was already decided by the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 though the said bill was not the subject matter of C.C.07 of 2018.

In view of the above, we are of the view that both the judgment dated 09.10.2018 in Case No.C.C.07 of 2018 as well as judgment dated 19.12.2018 in Case No. C.C. 28 of 2018 are required to be set aside and accordingly, both the impugned judgments in the aforesaid cases are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide afresh in accordance with law. The learned District Forum should consider the call letters/records as well as the scheme of the BSNL while deciding the case. The learned District Forum is directed to issue notice upon the parties so that they can appear and place their case before the learned District Forum. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.