Date of Filing – 18.01.2016
Date of Hearing – 09.03.2017
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (for short, BSNL) to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 211/2015. By the said order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Yogesh Gupta under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the Appellant like – (a) to refund Rs.2,000/-, (b) to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- etc.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that he runs a business of export for his livelihood by means of self-employment and applied for a new telephone connection with a broadband line BSNL Plan bb home combo U L D 900 on 13.09.2011 an amount of Rs.2,300/- was paid as security deposit. However, due to non-insallation of broadband connection, he could not run his business . Hence, the complaint on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of the BSNL with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) a direction to refund of Rs.2,300/-; (b) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and (c) litigation of Rs.5,000/-.
The Appellant being Opposite Party by filing a written version denied the allegations made by the complainant stating that the complaint is barred by limitation. The specific case of the OP was that the complainant wilfully violate the law because he obtained connection of broadband and telephone line for his domestic purpose but use the same for commercial purpose and as such the complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the evidence on record and other attending circumstances, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions as indicated above, which prompted the BSNL to prefer this appeal.
Despite receipt of notice, respondent did not appear. Under compulsion, I have heard Mr. Rajib Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit in absence of the respondent.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondent had applied for a new telephone connection with a broadband line of BSNL Plan bb home combo U L D 900 on 13.09.2011. For the said purpose, the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.2,300/- with the appellant as security deposit. The respondent had applied for the telephone connection for domestic purpose.
However, it has come to surface that the complainant runs a business of export. But the respondent did not specify the nature of business or the place wherefrom he runs the said business. In any case, the respondent in his petition of complaint has categorically mentioned that due to non-installation of broadband connection, he could not run his business for which he suffered huge monetary loss, mental and unbearable loss.
In this regard, the questionnaires put on behalf of BSNL to the respondent appears to be relevant for ascertaining the dispute. In Question No.06 it was put to the respondent – “Is it fact that you wilfully violate the law of the land because you obtained connection of broadband and telephone line for domestic purpose but use the same for commercial purpose” to which it was replied – “No. I vehemently denied. The question of usage or consumption arises when the service is provided, which was never provided. This is tantamount to false and baseless allegation”. However, the respondent had no courage to clearly state that he installed the connection of telephone and broadband for residential purpose. In another question being Question No.08 when it was asked – “Do you agree that instead of payment of the dues of the opposite parties, you on 16th March, 2015 sent a letter praying termination/cancellation/surrender of your telephone line” to which the reply was given – “Again, I say the same fact that bills are fictitious and false.....”.
The evidence on record goes to show that on 04.03.2015 the appellant through their legal agent issued a notice upon the respondent asking him to make payment against the total outstanding bills amounting to Rs.8,879/- within 15 days from the date of the order and just to escape the liability, the respondent on 11.05.2015 has filed this complaint without making payment of the outstanding amount.
Considering the above, I find that the Ld. District Forum without considering the matter from proper perspective misdirected itself in allowing the complaint for which the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed exparte. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/211/2015 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II for information.
