IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 113/2021 (filed on 14-07-2021)
Petitioner : Gopakumar M.S.
S/o. Sreedharan nair,
Mekkampurathu,
Kulathoorprayar P.O.
Kottayam – 686541.
(Adv. K.A. Prasad)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Telecom,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Principal General manager,
BSNL Pulimoodu Junction,
Kottayam – 686001
(2) Accounts Officer (TR-OSP)
Office of the Principal G.M.
BSNL Pulimoodu junction,
Kottayam -686001.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Francis Thomas)
(3) Village Officer,
Vellavoor village office,
Changanacherry, Kottayam
(4) The District Collector,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a subscriber of BSNL Land Line Number 0481-2498068 having broad band facility at a subscription rate of Rs.780 per month. The landline and internet service from the first and second opposite parties were almost satisfactory up to 15-5-2018. Thereafter the services became intermittent and faulty. The land phone and broadband connection remained in dead position for the last six months. By the end of December 2018 the authorities of the first opposite party from Kangazha exchange contacted the petitioner and offered reconnection along with prompt and quick services. The connection was reinstated on 31-1-2018 of Rs.780/- per month with unlimited internet data. Even
though the services were poor and faulty, the connection continued and the petitioner regularly paid the subscription amount up to 30-4-2019.
In the month of May 2019 authorities of the first opposite party issued a bill for Rs.1200/-. On 25-5-2019 the complainant approached the first opposite party Divisional office for shifting the subscription package to its minimum i.e. Rs.300/- per month and submitted a written request for that purpose. But the authorities had not responded to the request and all the services to petitioners telephone number were stopped by 31-5-2019.
Due to irregular , improper and faulty service, coupled with enhancement of subscription rate, without proper intimation, the petitioner decided to surrender the land phone along with broad band and as per the direction of first opposite party on 4-12-2019 the said equipments were surrendered along with a written request to close the account by paying arrears up to 31-5-2019. The JTO, BSNL, Pathanadu representing the first opposite party informed the complainant that he had not to pay any amounts as all the arrears will be adjusted from the security amount deposited by the complainant. After a lapse of 14 months from the date of surrender of the telephone the complainant received a notice, demanding to remit Rs.1768.133 towards arrear after adjusting the security amount. The arrear amount calculated in the said notice is exorbitant and complainant’s subscription arrears were limited up to 31-5-2019 and thereafter the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount towards arrears of subscription. Though the complainant approached the JTO to prove his innocence but it was in vain. On 28-6-2021 a demand notice was issued to the petitioners by the third opposite party for and on behalf of the fourth opposite party against the law and amounts to deficiency in service from the part of the first and second opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to withdraw the arrear notice issued to the petitioner and fix the arrears only up to 31-5-2019.
The first and second opposite parties filed version.
Though the notice was received third and fourth opposite parties did not care to file the version. Hence the third and fourth opposite parties are declared ex party. The contentions of the first and second opposite parties are as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable as no complaint will lie against the B.S.N.L. before the Consumer Redreasal Commission as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court. Billing account number of the customer stated in the complaint is not correct. The correct billing account number is 9036500343. The monthly charges applicable includes broadband rental of Rs.650/-, landline detailed bill charge of Rs.25 and GST applicable.
The line was not faulty after 15-5-2018 because broadband usage during the month of May 2018 is 25.84GB whereas the average usage for the previous six months is 18.31GB. Due to non payment of bill for the month of May 2018, the outgoing facility was bared from 20-7-2018 and as a consumer retention measure the charges from 20-7-2018 onwards Rs.1832/- was waived and the services were restored on 29-12- 2018. The complainant did not pay the subscription amount up to 30-4-2019. The last payment was made on 27-4-2019 against the bill dated 6-4-2019 which is for the period 1-3-2019 to 31-3-2019. Thereafter the bills dated 6-5-2019, 6-6-2019, and 6-8-02019 are pending and is due for the period from 1-4-2019 to 21-7-2019. The total amount due from the complainant with respect to these bills is Rs.2,918/-. Bill was generated on 6-5-2019 for billing period from 1-4-2019 to 30- 4-2019 for Rs.1,150.5. Summary of the same is Landline monthly charges is Rs.25, Broad band monthly charges is Rs.650/- one time charges is 300 and GST Rs.175.5. The broad band usage of this period was 54.29 Gb. The additional amount in the bill was a onetime charge of Rs.300. It indicates that whenever a customer has exceeded monthly data usage limit, browsing speed will be reduced for the rest of the month. For restoring the speed, customer has an online option to pay an additional fee. The customer himself opted for the same by agreeing to pay additional amount of Rs.300/-. Due to non-payment of bill for the month of April 2019, the broadband and outgoing facility in landline was barred from 21-6-2019. From the month of June 2019 also broadband usage was found till services are barred on 21-6-2019. The written request from the complainant regarding the surrendering of the connection was received at Kangazha office on 14-5-2020.
Normally as an outstanding pursuit measure, the customers are reminded of the dues by sending SMS and by other means such as automated telephonic reminders. Outgoing calls /broadband services are barred 30 days after the due date of bill and incoming services are barred and number is suspended due to non payment after 30 days. The connection was disconnected due to non-payment of bill on 31-12-2019. After adjustment of Rs.1150 available towards security deposit, balance amount payable is Rs.1,768/- as on 1-9-2021. Two letters were issued to the complainant in March 2020 and June 2020 requesting for payment of bills. Final notice dated 12-2-21 was sent to the complainant and the reply (email) given by him was not satisfactory. Hence revenue recovery proceedings were initiated on 9-3-2021 and RR no. 2021/665/05 was filed before the revenue authorities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?
(2) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite
parties as alleged?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant. Elizabeth Juley George who is the Ast. General Manager (legal) of the of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
16. Heard. Complainant filed argument notes.
17. Point No.1
The opposite parties have taken a contention in the version that the complaint will not lie against BSNL before this Commission in view of the special remedy provided in Section 7 (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, clearly specifies that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited vs Ajay Kumar Agrawal 2022 ICO 249 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The existence of an arbitral remedy will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019”. In Trans Mediterranean Air Ways Vs. Universal Export and Another – 2011 KHC 4862 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies available under any other statute”. In AIR 2021 SC 70 it has been held that “ the remedies available under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act”. So this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
Point No. 2:
In order to substantiate his case, the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination .no documentary evidence is from his side. From the side of the opposite parties marked Exts.B1 to B9. Ext. B1 is the letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. B2 is the copy of Final notice issued by Account Officer (TR-OSP) to the complainant. Ext. B3 is the copy of petition filed by the Account officer before the Kanjirappally Taluk Legal Service Committee against the complainant on 10-8-2021.
Ext. B4 is the copy of petition filed by the Account officer before the Kanjirappally Taluk Legal Service Committee against the complainant. Ext. B5 is the copy of the bill from 1-4-2019 to 1-5-2019 . . Ext. B6 is the copy of the bill from 1-5-2019 to 1-6-2019. . Ext. B7 is the copy of the bill from 1-6-2019 to 1-7-2019. Ext. B8 is the copy of the bill from 1-7-2019 to 1-8-2019. Ext. B9 is the copy of the bill from 1-8-2019 to 1-9-2019.
According to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
It is admitted that monthly charge applicable to the complainant is Rs.700 per month which includes broad band rent for Rs.650 and landline bill of Rs.24 and GST. In the month of May 2019 the complainant’s bill suddenly jumped to Rs.1200. On perusal of exhibit Ext. B5 which is the copy of the bill from 1-4-2019 to 1-5-2019 we can see that the monthly charges of the complainant was Rs.675 / Rs.300 is stated in the B5 towards one time charges and Rs.175/- as GST. According to the opposite parties the broad band usage of his period was 54.29 Gb. The additional amount in the bill as one time charge of Rs.300 indicates that the complainant opted for restoration of the browsing speed after he has exceeded monthly data usage limit. The complainant himself opted for the same by agreeing to pay additional amount of Rs.300/-.On perusal of Ext. B6 we can see that the monthly charges for the complainant was Rs.675 and GST was Rs.19.5. The total amount payable by the complainant as per exhibit B6 is Rs.1,969.98. Admittedly the complainant did not pay the bill amount in exhibit B5 and subsequent bills. Exhibit B9 proves that as on 6-9-2019 there was a due of Rs.2,918/- towards the charges of the complainant. Exhibit B2 proves that the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 30-1-2019 and after deducting the security amount there was a due of Rs.1,768/- towards the charges from the complainant. It is further stated in exhibit B2 that the complainant had used 109.35 G.B during the period of non-payment of charges.
To sum up, taking in to account all the documentary and oral evidence in this case, it can be concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point found accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of September, 2021
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Notice issued by opposite party
B2 – Notice issued by opposite party to petitioner
B3 – short description of complaint dtd.23-03-21
B4 – Short description of complaint dtd.10-08-21
B5 – Copy of bill for the period of 1-4-19 to 1-5-19 issued by opposite party
B6 – Copy of bill for the period of 1-5-19 to 1-6-19 issued by opposite party
B7 - Copy of bill for the period of 1-6-19 to 1-7-19 issued by opposite party
B8- Copy of bill for the period of 1-7-19 to 1-8-19 issued by opposite party
B9-Copy of bill for the period of 1-8-19 to 1-9-19 issued by opposite party
By Order
Assistant Registrar
