BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUDUCHERRY

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2016

C.C.No.1/2015

B.Bharathi, No.57, Kavi Kuil Street,

Ashok Nagar, Lawspet,

PUDUCHERRY – 606 008                                   ………                                     Complainant

                                                                             Vs.

1. The Accounts Officer (TR),

     O/o General Manager,BSNL,

     Rangapillai Street,

     PUDUCHERRY – 605 001.

2. The General Manager,

     Cum Central Public Information Officer

    Office of General Manager,

    BSNL,

    Ranga Pillai Street

    Puducherry – 605 001.

3. The Senior General Manager

    Cum First Appellate Authority

    Office of General Manager,

    BSNL,

    Ranga Pillai Street

    Puducherry – 605 001.

                 …………                                   Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN        

PRESIDENT

TMT. K.K.RITHA,

MEMBER

THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Thiru.S. Vimal,

Advocate, Puducherry

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Thiru.R.Ka. Prem Coumar,

Advocate, Puducherry

O   R    D    E    R

(By Tmt. K.K.Ritha, M.A., M.H.R., B.L.,

                                                      Member)

The complainant filed the complaint before this Commission for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony, humiliation, harassment, discrimination based on caste and status, intimidation, personal sufferings caused due to the act of the three opposite parties mentioned in the complaint and prays for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- .

            2. The complainant states that the landline connection was not given on seniority basis and lot of irregularities happened 19 years before since BSNL was the only  landline service at that time and having monopoly in the landline service. At present, he purchased a data card (Pre-paid) for internet service SIM No.9489718869 and charged Rs.1,500/- with the speed of 3G service. It did not provide internet service and it was almost defunct. The matter was taken to the concerned customer care who opined that the problem was due to over-crowding of lines.  Hence, the complainant was forced to use the SIM card for mobile phone service. Further, the complainant got two SIM cards which are prepaid. The services are very poor.  The complainant states that he used to receive calls starting with 140 and when requested to identify the owners of such numbers, the opposite parties denied. Moreover, his phone numbers are secretly given to private companies for promoting their business without his knowledge and hence his privacy is intruded. The complainant further states and in the month of January and February , 2014, the opposite parties did not provide internet and phone services, but the opposite parties are telling lies that they provided service. Under RTI Act, 2005, the complainant sought for information of internet usage for 2013 and 2014, but he failed to receive the information from the opposite parties on the ground that the data is not available. He has also sought for information under RTI Act about the defaulters list of the telephone bill in Puducherry, but it was not given to him.  On 26.12.2014, he gave a representation to the Public Grievance Cell of BSNL Office requesting them to disconnect the unlimited internet usage because the telephone lines were dead. The opposite parties without providing service, charged for the same. Even though he requested to waive the charges for the service not provided, the opposite parties failed to do so.     Only from   the end of February, 2014, his telephone line was disconnected.  

On 13.03.2014, the opposite party No.1 has sent a letter stating that they will take legal action for collecting the dues with penal interest  if the amount of Rs.3,775.45 was not paid. Again, the 1^st opposite party sent letters on10.04.2014, 07.05.2014 and 20.06.2014 for payment of the dues. On 23.05.2014, legal notice was sent for payment of the amount. In the first week of May, 2014, the complainant sent a letter to 1^st opposite party with his letter dated 26.12.2013 where, he had sought for disconnection of unlimited internet connection.  

            3. The reply version of the opposite party No.1: The O.P.No.1 states that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The General Manager, Telephone Vs. Mr.Krishnan & Another” in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004, dated 01.09.2009. The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant cannot file a single complaint on several causes of action and so the complainant cannot agitate RTI matters before this Commission.  The 1^st opposite party states that for landline connection provided on 16.04.1997 to the complainant, a sum of Rs.3,061/- was returned and the landline was closed on 24.04.2009. A new landline was provided on 13.11.2013 and the last payment was received on 13.11.2013 for Rs.1,250/-. The averments made by the complainant are false and not supported by any documentary proof. The landline and broadband connections were disconnected since the complainant did not pay the bill amount.   Tapping can be done on request from proper authority as provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and the averment made about tapping of his phone is false.  Such false averment made in F.A.No.11/2014 was already dismissed by this Commission in the order dated 30.04.2015.

4. The 3G service is functioning in the town limit and in all the areas within net coverage, depending upon the tower transmission the mobile services are likely to be disturbed and accordingly the content provider charges would be stopped. The averments regarding RTI matter does not pertain before this Commission. Further, it is not true that the representation to the public grievances, BSNL, Puducherry contains complaints such as, telephone fault, change of door number, phone tapping to deduct unlimited charges, to disconnect the internet connection and revised tariff. The complainant is not specific and clear in making these allegations. For permanent closure of any service, a separate application with specific request has to be given to the concerned section. The Public Grievance Cell forwarded the complainant’s matter to Lawspet Exchange and it was certified by telephone staff of that exchange that there is no fault in the telephone service and the same was intimated to the complainant. The telephone bills were correct and computed according to prevailing charges. Further, the complainant failed to establish correct details of the alleged complaint in the complaint.  The legal notice was sent because of non-payment of bills and not for threatening the complainant. The 1^st opposite party states that there was no unfair trade practice adopted against the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. The 1^st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. The complainant has not let in any evidence, however marked Exs.C1 to C6 and filed written arguments. On the side of opposite parties, the first Opposite Party, one G. Rajendiran, Sub-Divisional Manager, BSNL was examined himself as RW1 and marked Exs. R1 to R5 and also filed written arguments.

6. The question before this Commission is: Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether there is unfair trade practice leading to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

7. The 1^st opposite party cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & Another” by judgment dated 01.09.2009 in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004.  Wherein, it was decided that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7 (B) of Indian Telegraph Act, regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. 

8. In this connection, it is evident that the complainant first approached the Opposite Parties for the redressal of his grievances before them and after futile attempt to obtain remedy, he has approached this Commission for redressal.  According to Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act – The Act is not in derogation of any other law.  The Act is in addition to or additional remedy besides other existing laws.  Moreover, Arbitration clause is not a bar to entertain complaint under Consumer Protection Act. 

9. As per Section 2(d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986: - Consumer means any person who –

            “[hires of avails of ] of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who  [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]”

The complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties through Exs.C1 to C14, the monthly bills from July, 2013.

10. As per the above Section of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant enjoyed the services rendered by the opposite parties by passing consideration and hence the complainant falls within the ambit of ‘consumer’. Hence, the complainant is a consumer.

            11. The main allegations of the complainant against the Opposite Parties are irregularities, corruption, fraud, deficiency in service, problem with data card and phone service, informations about internet usage and RTI Act not given, harassment and discrimination on caste. 

            12. This Commission heard the arguments of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties sides and gone through all the documents produced before us.  The allegations stated in the complaint regarding irregularities, corruption, fraud, problem with data card and phone service, informations about internet usage and RTI Act not given, harassment and discrimination on caste are not a matter to be discussed before this Commission since it is beyond our purview.  The Consumer Protection Act is meant to redress the grievances of Consumers related to defect in goods, deficiency in service, Unfair Trade Practice, Excess Pricing and Spurious goods.  As such, the complainant is entitled to redress his complaint in matters relating to  the above categories before this Commission.  Hence, we are restricted to find out whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

            13. When we peruse the documents, it is observed that the document at page No.15 dated 26.12.2013, wherein, the complainant filed a complaint before the General Manager, BSNL, Pondicherry stating that the unlimited internet connection was not working, tapping of his phone, calls starting with 140, to find the owner of the phone number and requested to disconnect the unlimited internet connection.  Thereafter, the Opposite Parties raised the monthly bills for the month of -

01.01.2014 to 31.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.1086.42

01.02.2014 to 28.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.933.93

01.03.2014 to 31.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.16.29

From the above, it is seen that though the complainant submitted his letter on 26.12.2013 for disconnecting the said internet connection, still, the Opposite Parties sent the above bills for the month of January, February and March 2014.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

            14. Another allegation of the complainant is that he has requested for details of internet usages and the same was not provided to him which also led to deficiency in service. 

            15. As discussed above, we feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant and the complaint is partly allowed.  Other complaints relating to harassment, fraud, corruption, discrimination on the basis of caste cannot be entertained by this Commission.  The Complainant has to approach the appropriate Forum to redress such grievances.

            16. The bills collected for the three months viz. January, February and March 2014 amounts to Rs.2,037/- after the complainant’s letter dated 26.12.2013 for disconnecting the internet connection has to be refunded to the Complainant.

            17. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay:

            1. Rs.2,037/- which was unduly collected

 2. Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service

3. Rs. 2,000/- mental agony and sufferings

4. Rs. 2000/-  cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2016.

(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

(K.K.RITHA)

                                                                                              MEMBER

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:    NIL

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESSES:

RW1 –             11.02.2016                  G. Rajendiran, Sub-Divisional Manager, BSNL

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES' EXHIBITS:

(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

(K.K.RITHA)

                                                                                              MEMBER

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER