DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC –  07 of   2018

 

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.,

West Tripura. ….…..…......Complainant.

 

 

           -VERSUS-

 

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. .................Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

For the Complainant : Sri Gitanshu Sekhar Das,

  Sri Subhankar Deb,

  Sri Sujit Chakraborty,

  Advocate.

        

For the Opposite Parties : Smt. Kakali Deb,

  Smt. Ananya Deb,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  09.10.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Shyamal  Kanti Deb U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he got the mobile phone with the BSNL Post paid Sim Card. Bill dated 05.01.18 was raised for an mount of Rs.3156/- for one month was abnormal in comparison to previous bill. So he met with the office of O.P. No.2, General Manager, BSNL who assured that the allegation will be considered. So entire bill was paid by him. But after payment, the connection was withdrawn by the BSNL. It was told that by mistake it was done. But the connection was not restored. Petitioner holding the post of General Manager of TIDC. For this disconnection he suffered much and claimed compensation Rs.50,000/-. 

 

2. O.P., BSNL  appeared filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that complainant paid the bill amount on 26.01.18. Disconnection was made by the central billing system automatically on 26.01.18 due to excess of credit limit. Before disconnection SMS was sent by system to the customer. Due to mistake disconnection was made as said by the petitioner is not correct. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get any compensation.  

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the disconnection made by the BSNL was improper and deficiency of service?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?              

 

4. Petitioner produced copy of letter dated 03.04.18, copy of order dated 13,04.18, BSNL bill, Message, letter to General Manager by the complainant. Also statement on affidavit of the complainant.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the threshold report, bill with detail and statement on affidavit of Samir Das, authorized representative of BSNL.

 

6. On the basis of all these evidences e shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

7. Petitioner repeated the complaint petition in his statement on affidavit. From perusal of the letter it is found that by letter dated 23.02.18 petitioner informed the General Manager, BSNL that total bill amount shown was Rs.25,687/- and after discount net payable amount shown Rs.12,021/-. This was abnormal. By another letter dated 08.03.18 petitioner informed the General Manager, BSNL about abnormal high bill of Rs.3150/-, also informed about disconnection of the mobile connection. 

 

8. It is admitted fact that after payment of bill mobile connection was disconnected. O.P. in the written statement admitted it. O.P.W. Samir Das in the statement on affidavit stated that bill amount Rs.3,150/- was correct. Monthly bill for the period from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2017 was not abnormal. He admitted that complainant paid the bill on 26.01.18 and disconnection was made by centralized billing system automatically on 26.01.18. This is due to high usage from 01.01.18 to 26.01.18 in excess of credit limit. Rs.2,536/-. From this evidence it is clear that credit limit was Rs.2,536/- and in case of crossing of the limit the line would automatically disconnected. But for that period bill was given for Rs.24000/- where as Rs.3,156/- bill amount is given from 1st December, to  31st December 2017. The system can not be a pretext for showing abnormal bill. From the letter of the petitioner  it is found that after restoration of the mobile connection by the order of the court the bill amount was shown Rs.25,687/- and after rebate it was Rs.13,079/-. It appears that for filing the case the bill amount raised abnormally as a punishment. 

 

9. We have gone through the bill with detail and threshold report, Exhibit– A Series. It was non roaming facility. For one outgoing call Rs.611/- was charged. For local GPRS/ data usage Rs.5190/- was charged. Fixed monthly charge was shown Rs.325/- for 01.01.18 to 31.01.18. Monthly charge generally fixed on the basis of previous use. In place of Rs.325/- bill was made for Rs.3156/- and thereafter Rs.25,000/-. BSNL should not leave all matters to the system and machine for upholding false charges against a customer. The bill amount was Rs.21,650/- as stated by the SDE, Legal and after rebate it was Rs.14,275/-. We think that this is abnormal and such bill amount was actually not used. O.P. failed to give any specific evidence to support that such use was made by the petitioner to incur such a huge bill. We therefore, of the considered view that the bill amount should not be more than Rs.1,000/- when the minimum bill is Rs.325/-. There should be alert on such. We therefore, direct BSNL to receive Rs.1,000/- per month from 01.12.17 to 31.12.17. We also direct BSNL to receive the bill Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.14,275/- as shown for one month. Again and again the line was disconnected and restored by the direction of the Forum. It appears that the BSNL was negligent and proper service not provided to the customer. Petitioner being customer suffered because of such miss service of the O.P. BSNL. He is a responsible officer of T.I.D.C. so he suffered a lot because of disconnection after payment. We direct BSNL to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner also Rs.5,000/- litigation cost. In total Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner is to pay the bill amount Rs.2,000/- in place of the claim made by the O.P. We direct the BSNL to comply the order within 2 months. If not the compensation amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A.        

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA