STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1234/2015
(Arisen out of Order Dated 28/09/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/210/2015 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
1. The Divisional Engineer(Internal) BSNL/Calcutta Telephones, Cossipore Exchange
58/7A, B.T. Road, Kolkata - 700 002.
2. The C.M.M. BSNL/ Calcutta Telephones, Cossipore Exchange
58/7A, B.T. Road, Kolkata - 700 002.
3. The Accounts Officer TR (North)/NB - BSNL/Calcutta Telephones, Maniktala Exchange
58, Raja Dinendra Street, Kolkata - 700 006, P.S - Narkeldanga. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Syamal Kumar Saha 9/5, N.C. Das Road, P.O - Noyapara, Branagar, Kolkata - 700
090. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate For the
Respondent:
Dated : 25 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 18.11.2015 Date of Hearing - 11.04.2017 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 Parties to impeach the Order No.14 dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 210/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act with directions upon the Appellants/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to refund Rs.2,750/-, compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- aggregating of Rs.6,750/- within one month from the date of order otherwise to pay penal damages of Rs.100/- per day till satisfaction of the awarded amount.
The Respondent herein Sri Syamal Kumar Saha being Complainant filed the complaint stating that on receipt of a bill being No.142363257 dated 09.11.2014 for the period from 01.10.2014 to 31.10.2014 in the last week of November, 2014 he came to know with surprise
1
that BSNL/Calcutta Telephones changed his broadband plan BBG FN Combo 500 to BBG CNT Combo 500 arbitrarily without giving any prior intimation to him. Having no other alternative, the amount of bill of Rs.600/- was paid by him on 28.11.2014 and had to take a decision for broadband plan change to the plan BB HOME Combo UL - 675 from existing plan BBG FN Combo 500 w.e.f. 01.12.2014. The complainant alleged that on 18.01.2015 all on a sudden without giving any intimation, the broadband service had been withdrawn without giving any intimation to him. Hence, the complainant approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OPs with prayer for certain reliefs on the following heads, viz. - (a) refund of money of Rs.3,500/-; (b) compensation towards harassment and mental agony at Rs.4,00,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.3,200/- aggregating a total sum of Rs.4,06,700/-.
The Appellants being Opposite Parties/BSNL by filing a written version have stated that the plan BBG FN Combo 500 has been revised into BBG Combo 500 centrally as per Departmental Policy by a Circular dated 03.06.2014 and the said change has been published in several newspapers of different languages including Bengali, English and Hindi on 03.06.2014, 06.06.2014, 08.07.2014 etc. The opposite parties have stated that as per request made by the complainant changed of plan dated 29.11.2014 had been done automatically and subsequently bill has been raised through CDR Billing System and subsequently bill raised on 09.12.2014. But as the complainant did not make payment even after relaxation period, the outgoing bar was imposed as per system on and from 18.01.2015 by CDR System. The opposite parties have stated that the permanent disconnection of broadband service/telephone service can be processed through CDR System after payment of bill dated 09.03.2015 amounting to Rs.3,721/-
. According to the OPs as there was no deficiency in services, the complaint should be dismissed.
On evaluation of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs/BSNL, as indicated above. Challenging the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal. I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by Mr. Rajib Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and the respondent Syamal Kumar Saha in person.
Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondent used to possess broadband connection of BSNL being BBG FN Combo 500 and the said plan was changed to BBG CNT Combo 500 centrally as per Departmental Policy vide Circular No.1-1/2014/R&C(CFA) dated 03.06.2014. It is alleged by the respondent that on 09.11.2014 for the first time he came to know about such change from receiving one bill for the period from 01.10.2014 to 31.10.2014. The fact remains that such a change was accepted by the respondent on 28.11.2014. The respondent has made a statement that under compelling circumstances, he had to accept such offer of change of plan. The said explanation by the respondent does not appear to be convincing. Immediately, he could have stopped the broadband connection but did not do so. It is true that subsequently he has made correspondences with the BSNL Authority but at the same time he cannot be allowed to continue or enjoy the said broadband facility without making any payment and the materials on record goes to show that due to non-payment of the amount, the outgoing line was disconnected.
2
The crux of allegation of the respondent about change of plan without any intimation to him. However, the record reveals that the respondent/BSNL has made several public notice in different newspapers in several languages including Bengali, English and Hindi. All the notifications of BSNL Ltd. (A Govt. of India Enterprise) clearly postulates that BSNL revised the Free Night (FN) Ltd. Broadband and Plans Usages Charges and Nomenclatures of the given broadband plans w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said without giving any intimation all on a sudden, the BSNL arbitrarily has changed the plan without any intimation to the customers. The fact remains that both the plans are of same amount and as such question of adjustment of Rs.500/- does not arise.
The materials on record also goes to show that the respondent exercised his option and changed the plan on 29.11.2014. On 09.12.2014 a bill was raised and it was done after adjustment of existing plan i.e. BBG CNT Plan to BBG HOME Combo Plan unlimited and subsequently, bill raised amounting to Rs.9,882/- and due date was 30.12.2011. At the time of hearing, respondent himself has admitted that relaxation of 8 days given by the BSNL. In fact, the publication was not made prior to 01.07.2014 and as such the relaxation was given. However, inspite of the relaxation period, the respondent did not pay the amount which was raised by the BSNL and as such the outgoing bar was imposed on and from
18.01.2015.
The Ld. District Forum has made several comments regarding the conduct of BSNL for their failure to make public notice prior to 01.07.2014 i.e. the date from when the new plan will come into force. Certainly, it was a lapse on the part of the appellants but at the same time when the publication was made, particularly in Bengali newspaper on 06.07.2014 and a relaxation was given for 8 days, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in services on the part of the appellants, more particularly, when the respondent himself has accepted the said change of plan on 28.11.2014.
Admittedly, the respondent is a 'consumer' under the appellants but in order to obtain a relief under the provisions of the Act, it has to be established that there was deficiency on the part of the appellants as per definition of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which reproduces below -
"deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner or performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".
The materials on record indicate that about change of plan of broadband service connection on and from 01.07.2014, the BSNL has made several public notice in different daily leading newspapers of the country including Bengali and English. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants/BSNL has changed the plan whimsically without following any guideline. There has been some delay in publication of public notices but when, according to respondent himself, a relaxation of 8 days was given and further the respondent himself opted for changed plan on 28.11.2014, certainly, I do not find any shortcoming on the part of the appellants/BSNL. Therefore, when there is no deficiency in services on the part of BSNL, the loss if any at all suffered by the respondent has no bearing with the change of policy w.e.f.
01.07.2014.
3
Considering all the above, I cannot share the view of the Ld. District Forum that there was deficiency in services on the part of the BSNL. As a result, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In other words, the appeal being meritorious one, should be allowed. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
The impugned order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/210/2015 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.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY]
PRESIDING MEMBER
4
Comments