BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.268 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.06.2015

Date of Decision: 02.05.2017

Gurdip Singh Sachdev son of S. Ram Singh Sachdev, resident of 18-19, Atwal House Colony, Cantt Road, Jalandhar City 144001, age 79 years, 98140-61704.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Communication (Post Office & Telephones), Government of India, New Delhi through its Secretary.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jalandhar Telecom, District Jalandhar through its General Manager.

3. The Accounts Officer (TRA), Office of General Manager Telecommunications District, TRA Unit, Model Town Exchange Building (Admn. Block), Jalandhar- 144003.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. MS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 dispensed with.

Sh. APS Pathania, Adv Counsel for OP No.2 and 3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant with the prayer that the complainant is having Telephone connection bearing No.0181-2226701, having customer ID No.1002623704, Account No.1003080970 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jalandhar. The complainant is having this telephone connection for the last more than two decades. The OP No.2 vide their notice bearing No.TRA/AO (LANDLINE)/NOTICE/IC-BARRED/177 dated 22.10.2014 sent on 15.11.2014 claimed that the above mentioned telephone connection was disconnected with effect from 15.10.2014 temporarily and thereafter, it has been permanently disconnected with effect from 10.11.2014. This notice claimed that the bills have not been paid and as such, disconnection has been made permanently. The whole of said notice was totally false one and had been sent with a view to unnecessarily harass the complainant and to put him into loss of practice because he is working as an Advocate and as such for the last 1 ½ months he could not communicate his clients and thus suffered in his practice.

2. That the contention of the OP No.2 and 3 was that bill dated 10.01.2014 for the sum of Rs.1369.23 was not paid. In fact, no such bill was ever sent to the complainant on 10.01.2014 regarding Rs.1369.23. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills as and when received. It may be mentioned that the bill which was sent to the complainant on 26.05.2014 was for a sum of Rs.862/- and the same was paid on 20.05.2014 vide receipt No.JLD-0010120051400110. (Copy of the bill sent to the complainant on 26.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.862/- and the receipt thereof dated 20.05.2014 are attached herewith). Thereafter, a bill was sent to the complainant on 04.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.744/- which was received by him in the month of July, 2014. No bill for the month of July, 2014 was sent to the complainant and accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- on 19.07.2014 vide receipt No.JLD-1000619071400056. Thereafter, no bill was received for the month of August and September, 2014 but in the month of October, 2014, a bill for Rs.1369.23 dated 04.10.2014 was received which was readily paid on 24.10.2014 vide receipt No.BSNL:JLA 04157 dated 24.10.2014. Then the telephone connection was disconnected as per letter dated 15.11.2014 but still a bill for sum of RS.776/- dated 04.11.2014 was sent which was paid on 17.11.2014 vide receipt No.BSNL:JLA 04233 dated 17.11.2014.

3. It was crystal clear that there was no non payments of the bills but intentionally and willfully with a view to harass the complainant and for want of proper service on the part of the OPs, this telephone connection was illegally and unlawfully disconnected. Later on, the complainant sent his representative and he approached the office of General Manager and the concerned clerk showing him all the documents but they refused to entertain the same on the ground that additional money had to be paid for getting the telephone connection restored as mentioned in the notice dated 22.10.2014 and without that the telephone connection will not be restored. Further, it was claimed that fresh telephone connection should be applied. This is nothing but total highhandedness on the part of OP No.2 and 3 and accordingly, the complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.50,000/- on account of non contacting with his clients and got no fresh case, accordingly, a notice was sent by the complainant on 27.11.2014 to the OP No.1 and 2 under Section 80 of CPC and further they were apprised that the civil and criminal cases would be filed against them in case, needful is not done. On receipt of notice dated 27.11.2014, Shri R.S. Rana, Assistant Director General (PGL) Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Telecommunication, PG Legal Section, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 vide his registered letter No.2-44/2014 PGL dated 11.12.2014 informed the complainant that the matter can be taken with BSNL and the copy of the legal notice which was sent by the complainant was forwarded to CMD, BSNL for necessary action. After realizing their mistake and thereafter, a letter was received from the OP No.3 vide letter bearing No.AO TRA/Legal Notice/2014/3 dated 06.12.2014 show regret for inconvenience caused to the complainant and assured that the connection will be immediately restored and thereafter connection was restored in the end of December, 2014 and it was only a temporary connection and no regular connection was restored by providing regular line.

4. Thereafter, in the months of March, 2015 the telephone connection was again disconnected and there is no dial-tone and inspite of making requests many times and sending his representative by the complainant, the telephone connection has not been restored uptill now for the last more than three months. However, the bills have been regularly sent for all this period and the same have been duly paid. Latest bill was sent on 04.05.2015 which was paid on 15.05.2015 vide receipt No.BSNL:JAL04918. Previously also, a bill was received on 04.04.2015 which was duly paid on 17.04.2015 and thus all the bills have been regularly paid inspite of the fact that no regular service has been provided by the OPs and thus they are guilty of not providing proper service. The above detailed acts of the OPs clearly shows that the OPs are negligent in service and they are also involved in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on their part and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh for loss suffered to the complainant due to illegal disconnection of telephone connection and also pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for harassment to the complainant and also directed to refund the amount of Rs.1496.86 as illegal claimed by the OP from the complainant and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- and in total Rs.2,23,496.86.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly service of the OP No.1 was ordered to be dispensed with by my Predecessor on the ground that the OP No.1 is not a necessary party whereas service of OP No.2 and 3 was duly got effected and accordingly OP No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the OPs. Neither there is any deficiency in service, nor there is any negligence or unfair trade practice or malpractices on the part of the answering OPs. The telephone connection of the complainant was in a working condition and since the last bill was not paid within time and there is a provision for automatic disconnection of the telephone connection, as such beyond the period of the bill, the telephone connection was automatically disconnected and when the payment was received by the BSNL regarding the said month, the telephone connection was again restored in its earlier condition. The said telephone connection is still working internally from the telephone exchange and also from the polls and the complainant has been informed on numerous occasion that the telephone connection is in a working condition and if there is any internal fault, the telephone mechanic be allowed to enter into the premises and to see the fault internally, but he has not been allowed which has caused a problem to the OP to give a satisfactory service to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on merit. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed and even there is no cause of action arose to the complainant for filing the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the connection of the complainant was installed but the same was disconnected for non payment of bill and when bill was paid, the connection was restored. The other allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.

6. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.CA-1 to Ex.CA-18 and closed the evidence.

7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

8. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for respective party and also scanned the case file very minutely.

9. After considering the over all factum as put before us by both the counsels for the party as well as from the scanning of the documents, we came to conclusion that the factum in regard to installation of BSNL connection in the premises of the complainant is not denied. The number of telephone is 0181-2226701 and it is also admitted by the OP that the telephone connection of the complainant was disconnected for want of non deposit of bills but on the other hand, the complainant alleged that he has been regularly paying the telephone bill time to time and no doubt he has also brought on the file a notice issued by OP Ex.CA-1 and some bills and receipts Ex.CA-2 to Ex.CA-9 and accordingly we have gone through the all bills and receipts produced on the file by the complainant and find that there is a bill dated 04.10.2014 for an amounting to Rs.1369.23, in that bill Ex.CA-6, the previous balance has been shown Rs.592.17 and period of aforesaid bill Ex.CA-6 is mentioned from 01.09.2014 to 30.09.2014. So, it means that the previous balance as referred above of Rs.592.17 is a charges of the bill for the month of August, 2014 which was not deposited by the complainant because he has not produced on the file any receipt in regard to depositing the said amount of the bill for the month of August, 2014 rather the complainant in his complaint in Para No.7 categorically mentioned that no bill was received for the month of August and September, 2014 whereas the bill for the month August, 2014 was issued by the OP but the same was not deposited and due to that reason the telephone connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected and when this amount of Rs.1369.23 was deposited by the complainant including the previous balance of month August, 2014 then admittedly the connection of the complainant was restored. So, from this angle we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP rather we think that it is the duty of the consumer to deposit the charges of the telephone bills within a stipulated period.

10. So for the question of not working of the telephone connection of the complainant since March, 2015 is concerned for that purpose, the reply given by the OP seems to be true one, because as per version of the OP, the telephone connection of the complainant is still in working condition from the telephone exchange as well as from the polls and if there is any fault, the same is internal fault in the house of the complainant but the complainant did not allow the mechanic of the OP to enter the premises where the said telephone connection is installed and due to that reason the dial tone is not hear in the telephone set which shows that the OP is not in fault for providing satisfactorily service rather the complainant himself did not allow the mechanic of the Telephone Department to enter the premises. So, with these observations, we find that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

02.05.2017 Member President

Gurdip Singh Vs. Union of India and Others.

Present: Sh. MS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 dispensed with.

Sh. APS Pathania, Adv Counsel for OP No.2 and 3.

It has come to my notice that one application filed by applicant/OP for directing the complainant to disclose the better particular is lying on file un-decided. So, accordingly upon this application, argument heard and find that the applicant/OP sought direction through this application to the complainant to furnish a better particular and no doubt the reply of the said application has been also filed by the complainant and after going through the contents of the application and reply, we find that the instant application filed at the stage, when the case was fixed for argument and better particulars can be demanded from other party before filing a written reply in order to facilitate to prepare the reply in proper manner but when both the party led their respective evidence and brought on file all the relevant documents, then the question does not arise for calling upon the other party to disclose better particular. So, accordingly we find at this stage this application is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed.

Remaining oral argument heard and now to come upon after lunch.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

02.05.2017 Member President