Orissa

Kendujhar

44/2014

Sri Pratyush Kumar Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 44 OF 2014

Sri Pratyush Kumar Pattnaik, aged about 37 years,

S/O: Late Sadasiva Pattnaik,

At/Post- Bodapalasa,

P.S- Sadar, Dist- Keonjhar                                   ..........................Complainant

                   Vrs

The General Manager, B.S.N.L,

Keonjhar Telecom District,

At/Post- Keonjhargarh,

Dist- Keonjhar                                                     .............................Op. Party

 

PRESENT- Sri Akshaya Kumar Purohit, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. B. Giri,                       MEMBER (W)

                   Sri S.C.Sahoo,                   MEMBER

Advocate for the complainant- Self

Advocate for the Op              - Sri Saroj Kumar Bhuyan

_____________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing - 6.10.2015                               Date of Order - 18.11.2015

_____________________________________________________________

Sri A.K. Purohit, President  

The case of the complainant is that, the complainant having a BSNL SIM Bearing No. 9437057231 wants to avail a unlimited free call scheme from the O.P. for his use as the O.P. has promoted the same, and accordingly paid the required amount of Rs 999/- on dated 18.9.2014. The complainant also received a message from the O.P. regarding receipt of required amount under the scheme by the O.P. But the complainant was not provided with the service under the scheme from the O.P. and his call from BSNL to BSNL was charged from his main balance. To this the complainant had approached the Customer Care of the O.P. vide complaint No. 1118418123 dated 18.9.2014 but his request has not been considered nor his defect with the SIM card was rectified. Hence the complaint.

2. The O.P. has contested the case by filing his written version. According to the O.P. since the complainant has availed the facility of call user group through Black Bee Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd, he is not entitled to the benefit of unlimited free call facility. Hence the O.P. claims for dismissal of the case.

3. Heard both the parties. The complainant appears in person and submitted that, since the O.P. has received the amount as per the scheme he is duty bound to provide the facility and hence the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P. submitted that, after cancelation of the CUG scheme the complainant has already availed the unlimited free call service since 21.9.2014 and hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

4. Perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant is using the SIM of the O.P. vide SIM No. 9437057231 and the O.P. is the service provider for the same. It is also an admitted fact that the O.P. has promoted a scheme for its user which is known as unlimited free call from BSNL TO BSNL within Odisha wherein a user can avail the same on payment of Rs.999/-. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid the required amount of Rs.999/- on dated 18.9.2014 for availing the said scheme. The only dispute between the parties is whether the complainant is debarred from the scheme of the O.P. as he was a member of the call user group scheme Black Bee Multi Trade Company.

5. Perused the Xerox copy of documents filed by the O.P. It is seen that, the complainant has applied for inclusion of his name in the CUG scheme of Black Bee Company, and his name has been included in the said scheme by Black Bee Company in SL. No. 20. It is not seen anywhere that, there is a stipulation in the said scheme that a person of CUG scheme is not entitled to the benefit of other scheme. Further these documentary evidence shows that, CUG is a scheme promoted by Black Bee Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. Company and the same is not a scheme of the O.P.  Therefore the plea taken by the O.P. has no force.

6. It is seen from the Xerox copy of document filed by the complainant that, the complainant had paid Rs.999/- on dated 18.9.2014 for availing the free call facility from the O.P. It is the case of the complainant that, as he was not provided with the free call service from the O.P. the complainant immediately lodges a complaint before the customer care of the O.P. There is no material available on record to show that, the customer care of the O.P. has taken any step to provide service to the complainant. Therefore after receiving required amount from a customer the service provider is under obligation to provide the same and in the event the same has not been provided then it amounts to deficiency in service.

7. With these discussion and material available on record it is held that the act of the O.P. is arbitrary and without any basis and the same are amounts to deficiency in service. In this context it is profitable to reminded of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta  (AIR 1994 SC 787) explaining the social evils that arise from arbitrary and capricious exercise of power in the following words in Para 10:

“A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. ….. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness.”

8. Under the aforesaid facts and position of law it is a case of harassment to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the relief and to compensation.

 

HENCE ORDER

The O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 999/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order and the O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation within the same period. Failing which the entire amount shall bear an interest at the rate of 8% till payment.

      Accordingly the case is disposed of.

 

        I agree                                       I agree

 

 (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                         (Smt. B. Giri)                                 (Sri A.K. Purohit)

Member, DCDRF                    Member (W), DCDRF                          President, DCDRF

    KEONJHAR                               KEONJHAR                                         KEONJHAR

 

                                                                             Dictated & Corrected by me.

                                                                                       (Sri A.K. Purohit)                                                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT, DCDRF KEONJHAR