District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                 Complaint Case No.CC/82/2020

                                         (Date of Filing:-13.11.2020)

Sri Debasis Sarkar

Residing at Vill:- Samaspur, P.O. Dhaniakhali,

P.S. Dhaniakhali,District:-Hooghly, Pin:- 712302

Represented by his father Sri Haraprasad Sarkar

Residing at the same address as mentioned above.

The Accounts Officer

BSNL, Dhaniakhali Office

P.O. & P.S. Dhaniakhali, District:- Hooghly, Pin-712302

                                                                                 …………….Opposite Party

Before:-

Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

PRESENT:

Dtd. 09. 02. 2024

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

                    Having been aggrieved and dissatisfied with the abrupt disconnection of the landline telephone connection by the OP BSNL authority in spite of payment of the bills raised by the said authority, the instant case has been filed by the complainants, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as follows.

The complainant, holder of a landline connection of the BSNL authority claims to have paid off all the bills raised by the said authority from time to time and no bill reportedly was left unpaid in respect of the periods prior to June 2019.
Allegedly, the Complainant, since June 2019 onwards, was not in receipt of any bill and as a result of the same the Complainant was not in a position to pay any amount towards landline usage charges for June 2019 and the following months.

The Complainant claims to have made contact with the opposite party with a purpose to resolve the issue but reportedly the OP assured the Complainant that bills could not be issued due to certain technical snag and the same would be issued as soon as the snag is repaired. The Complainant claims to have been advised by the OP not to make any payment without any bill.

But allegedly without giving any alert through any notice or sms and without raising any further bill ‘one fine morning’ some agent of the OP BSNL authority appeared in the scene and disconnected the landline.

The complainant on enquiry did not receive any satisfactory reply.

On 01.08.2019 the Complainant received a bill of Rs.1054/- in respect of the period 01.08.2019 to 30.09.2019 i.e. the period when the landline connection was not in operation.

Consequently the Complainant sent a letter to the BSNL authority on 30.09.2019 but this time also no reply was received from the BSNL end.

Referring the matter to the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business practice-RO Hooghly (CA&FBP) did not yield any result.

Thus, considering the treatment extended by the OP as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant was compelled to file the instant Complaint petition before this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, anxiety and harassment and to pass any other order or orders to which the Complainant is entitled by virtue of the extant legal provision. However this ‘any other order or orders’ is not specified.

The Complainant to substantiate his allegations against the sole OP has annexed two bills raised by the OP one in respect of month ending May 2019 and the other in respect of month ending August 2019. Besides, a purported communication made by the Complainant to the OP dtd.30.09.2019 is also submitted.

The case ran ex parte against the sole OP as in spite of proper service of notice the OP did not appear before this Commission.

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

The complainants and the sole opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/- .Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Now the issues, whether there was any deficiency of service on the OP’s part and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief, are taken together for convenient discussion as the issues are mutually inter-related.

Decision with reason:-

Materials on records are perused.

In spite of non-receipt of bills in respect of months ending June and July 2019 the complainant did not make any communication with the OP through post or through e-mail. No hard evidence is submitted in support of the claim that the BSNL authority assigned the reason for non-issue of bills to some technical snag and advised the Complainant to refrain from making any payment until and unless any bill is received.

No formal complaint either manually or electronically appears to have been made by the Complainant of this case.

The Complainant has not given the specific date on which the landline was disconnected or the date from which the landline was inoperative. This is not clear whether there was any technical fault or there was the actual disconnection.

Normally when a landline is disconnected without any notice the concerned subscriber has to lodge a complaint over telephone with the BSNL authority and in turn a docket no./complaint no. is allotted by the said authority. No sms/e-mail in this regard appears to have been sent to the OP.

In the instant case no such complaint appears to have been lodged.

The Complainant even after the disconnection and on receipt of the post-disconnection bill in respect of month ending August 2019 did not take up the issue either with the customer care wing of BSNL or the next higher authority of BSNL. Thus the Complainant before exhausting the concerned forums of BSNL has knocked the doors of this Commission.

However the most glaring feature of this complaint petition is that while praying direction from this Commission the Complainant has not uttered a single word with regard to restoration of the landline connection and regularization of the bills. For obvious reason it transpires that the Complainant is not at all interested in the restoration of the landline connection and revision of the bill in respect of month ending August 2019.

The Complainant has simply prayed for ‘a decree directing the OP Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony, anxiety and harassment……’

          On careful examination of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of BSNL cannot be established unquestionably.

Moreover it should be spelt out once and for all in this order that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not supposed to be used as a tool for earning money in the form of compensation exclusively. The Complainant will be at liberty to approach to the appropriate judicial forum for claiming compensation exclusively.

Hence it is

                                                ORDERED

that the complaint case no. 82/2020 be and the same is dismissed ex parte with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in