MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

            This Appeal along with counter-Appeal No. FA/251/2009, both of which were heard analogously, arose out of the same judgement dt. 17.6.09  in DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II in Complaint Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. 513/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint against the Ops on contest, and this order will govern the Appeal No. FA/251/2009.

          The complainant’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant availed of a trial offer of broadband facilities meant for landline users of BSNL.  The trial offer was valid till 23.6.06.  The complainant started availing of the facilities on and from 24.4.06.  As the complainant was not satisfied with the performance of the broadband facilities he asked for discontinuance of the facilities to the BSNL authority after the statutory period of two months.  The complainant was informed that the broadband connection would be ceased automatically after expiry of two months.  However, according to the complainant’s case, the BSNL authority sent bills even after the expiry of the period and ultimately the complainant had to pay the bills even after expiry of the statutory period of trial offer facilities.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such illegal billing the complainant filed the petition of complaint thereby praying for refund of the excess amount paid along with interest and compensation.

          The Ops, BSNL authorities, contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that as even after expiry of the statutory period the complainant was provided with the broadband facilities, which the complainant used, necessary bills were sent to the complainant.  However, in this connection, the Ops also admitted that as there was some communication gap, the broadband facility could not be stopped even after expiry of the statutory period.

          While disposing of the petition of complaint the Ld. District Forum after allowing the petition of complaint has ordered refund of the bill amount for the period from 20.6.06 to 31.7.08 along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- thereby permitting the Ops to adjust the refund and compensation amount against future bills of the landline facility of the complainant.  The complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order of adjustment has instituted the present Appeal.

          The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in ordering refund in the manner as discussed above.

DECISION WITH REASONS

          At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that firstly the awarded amount was much less than what was prayed for by the Appellant and secondly, as the Appellant is not using any landline facility any more the scope of adjustment is not there and hence, the present Appeal has been preferred.  While elaborating his submissions the Appellant, who is pursuing the present Appeal personally, has also submitted that in this case from the materials on record it would be palpably clear that though the Appellant spent no time in intimating the Respondent to stop or close the broadband facility either over phone or by written correspondence, but for reasons best known to the Respondents they did not act accordingly and unnecessarily continued with the broadband facility till 31.6.07.  According to the Appellant, for the extended period the Respondents sent bills which the Appellant had to pay without any rhyme and reason and the appellant is legally entitled to refund of the same which has been kindly ordered by the Ld. District Forum.  However, according to the Appellant, as the Appellant is no more having any landline facility, the scope of adjustment of monetary compensation and refund of billed amount is nil and the relevant ordering portion may be modified.  The Ld. Advocate for the Respondents while countering such submissions and also raising his voice against the propriety of the impugned judgement has submitted that Ld. District Forum has acted without jurisdiction as in case of billing dispute the scope of Consumer Forum had been ousted.  In this connection, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has cited a decision reported in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed that “when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred”.  With due respect to the aforesaid submissions put forward on behalf of the Respondents we are of the opinion that in this case there is no billing dispute in its true sense since as admitted, even after statutory period the broadband facilities were extended though the Appellant long before the expiry of the statutory period requested the Respondent to disconnect the broadband facilities and more so, it is impliedly admitted by the Respondents that as there was some communication gap the broadband facilities were extended beyond the prescribed period.  If that be the position, we do not think that the facts and circumstances of the present case fits in with the facts and circumstances of the cited decision.  From the materials on record we are of considered opinion that for no fault on the part of the Appellant he has suffered unnecessarily both mentally and also in terms of money value.  In this aspect we also hold that at least one should respect the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Appellant as it has become evident from the materials on record.  Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we think that there is no point to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum save and except that portion of the ordering portion of the impugned judgement, which relates to adjustment of refund of bill amount and compensation amount from future bills, which, in our opinion, should be deleted keeping the remaining ordering portion of the judgement intact.  In the result, the Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

          Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest and the paragraph-3 of the ordering portion of the impugned judgement stands deleted and the impugned judgement is modified accordingly.