West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/64/2019

Mr. Biman Chanda, S/O- Late mahendra Nath Chanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Raiganj SSA - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

               The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 2,000 /- + compensation Rs.10,000/- ,Total amount = Rs.12,000/-.

               The fact of the case, in brief, is that Complainant had a Telephone Connection vide connection no.03522-258825 under the Opposite Parties and he surrendered his telephone connection on 20.07.2015 along with necessary papers and claimed his security money from the Opposite Party No.2 and he made several request to the Opposite Party No.1 and under the Instruction of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant filed a Mandate Form with account no. to the Opposite Party No.1 on 05.08.2016 but in vain. Thereafter, on 03.06.2017 the Complainant met with the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount and the Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant but till to date the Opposite Party No.1 did not refund the same. The Complainant also gave intimation for refund the amount 0n 05.04.2019, then the Complainant made a complaint on 14.05.2019 before the Asst. Director, Dakshin Dinajpur Consumer Affairs and fair business practices, Dakshin Dinajpur but the Opposite Parties were not present at the mediation. Lastly, the Complainant filed a intimation on 21.06.2019 before the Opposite Party No.1. But till now they did not pay the security money to the Complainant. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the Instant case before this Commission for relief as prayed for.                

               Notices were duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1& 2 appeared before this commission and filed their written version.

     By filing written version, the opposite Parties denied the material allegation of the complainant and submitted that the Complainant was a consumer under BSNL vide telephone no. 03522-258825 and the Complainant surrendered his telephone on 20.07.2015 but his Bank details were provided by him on 05.08.2016 through Mandate Form. As a result the case could not be processed in time due to non-submission of all required  documents for providing refund and the case migrated to refund status. Subsequently, the case was processed but the payment could not be completed due to system error at that time. Further, the Complainant did not communicate the status of payment and non-payment to the Opposite Parties. The matter did not came to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties as the refund case are processed centrally by Circle Office Kolkata for entire West Bengal Circle. The matter again came to the Opposite Parties when the Complainant submitted a representation on 05.04.2019 and then and then the Opposite Parties took immediate action for ensuring the due payment at the earliest. There is an outstanding amount of Rs.1114/-. All the system related action will be completed shortly and despite of the fact that presently BSNL is going through financial crunch which is known to all. Effort was made to get the refund amount to the Bank account of the Complainant shortly after deducting the amount of last bill and service charge. Thus, there is no willful negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the claim of Complainant is not justified.      

           To prove his case, the complainant has filed photo copies of  (i) Letter to A.O.T.R. (ii) Mandate Form for ECS/NEFT Scheme of Bank (iii) Letter to S.D.O.T (iv) Telephone ( Land line) bill (v) Letter to A.O.T.R. dated 21.06.2019 (vi) Acknowledgement Receipt of Rs. 2,000/- ( Security Money).  

             On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have filed original Bill for the period from 01.08.2015 to 22.09.2015.

          

              In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration

 

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

         

          1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?           

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the               Opposite Parties?

3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for ? 

 

 

                                                              DECISION  WITH  REASONS  

 

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Parties at length. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by both the parties.          

          At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is willful negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the  Opposite Parties.  

Lastly, he submitted that the Complainant has proved his case so, he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.   

           On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also discussed his defense case and submitted that they are agree to pay the security money to the Complainant after deducting the outstanding dues but due to financial crisis and system error the money refund can not be provided in time. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties . Due to system error it happened so.                                                 

          Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1   

 

            On perusal of the materials on record it appears that in paragraph- 9 of the written version, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainant was a consumer to the Opposite Parties. If this be the so, there is no doubt to say that the Complainant  is a consumer to the Opposite Parties according to section 2 of the C.P. Act,1986 read with C.P. Act, 2019.

                   Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3  

 

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

              It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had a Telephone being no. 03522-258825 and surrendered the same on 20.07.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant applied for refund of security money  and also submitted Mandate Form on 05.08.2016 but till now the Complainant has not got his security money.

            The receipt reflects that the Complainant deposited security money of Rs.2,000/- before the Opposite Parties on 17.07.1999. It also found from the Mandate Form that the Complainant submitted the said Mandate Form on 05.08.2016 with his all information required by the Opposite Parties.  It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the Complainant approached several times before the Opposite Parties and requested them to refund the security money but in vain and then he submitted letter dated 05.04.2019 and 21.06. 2019 in writing before the Opposite Parties. Those letters have been filed before the Commission.

          It is accepted by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties that the security money has not yet been refunded due to some system error. Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties, further, contented that a telephone bill  of Rs.1,141/- is still due on the part of the Complainant to be paid for the period from 01.08.2015 to 22.09.2015.

            Now, on perusal of the said telephone bill it appears that the bill period is 01.08.2015 to 22.09.2015 whereas the telephone connection was surrendered on 20.07.2015 so, it will not be out of place to say that the said bill is fake and it is not considerable. Apart from it, it is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that this bill has not been sent to the Complainant at any point of time.

            Further, it has been alleged by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties that the instant claim petition is time barred because the telephone connection was surrendered on 20.07.2015 and the Mandate Form for ECS/ NEFT scheme of Bank was submitted on 05.08.2016 and this case has been filed on 25.06.2019 beyond the period of limitation. So, this case should be dismissed on the ground of limitation ground. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that this case has been filed much within the period of limitation because after surrender of the telephone connection, the Complainant approached before the Opposite Parties on several occasions and requested verbally for refund of the security money but in vain. Thereafter, as per instruction of the Opposite Parties the Complainant submitted Mandate Form on 05.08.2016 still then the Opposite Parties did not refund the security money then the Complainant submitted written complaint before the Opposite Parties on 05.04.2019 and then lastly, filed this case on 25.06.2019,  Hence, the instant case is not barred by limitation period.

             Here, it is fact that the Mandate Form was submitted on 05.08.2016 and when the Complainant saw that in spite of submitting of Mandate Form the Opposite Parties did not refund the security money, then he visited the Opposite Parties on 03.06.2017 and also on several times but in vain. Thereafter, the Complainant filed written complaint before the Opposite Parties on 05.04.2019 and thereafter, having no alternative filed the instant case on 25.06.2019. The cause of action is 05.04.2019 and this case has been filed on 25.06.2019 much within the period of limitation.   

          In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is  deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties .

 

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Opposite Parties. 

Hence, it is

                                                                                             O R D E R E D

           

          That the Consumer Case No. 64 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part but without cost. 

           The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 8% from 20.07.2015 within 45 days or till realization from the date of passing of this order by credit the said amount in the account no.1032104000009225, IDBI Bank, Balurghat Branch .The Opposite Parties are further directed to also credit a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation in favour of the Complainant in the said Bank account within the said period, in default the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

             Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.