Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

PONDICHERRY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice K. Venkataraman, President, K.K. Ritha, Member S. Tirougnanassambandane, Members
B. BHARATHI - Appellant
Versus
THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR) OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER BSNL - Respondent
Complaint Case No. CC/1 of 2015
Decided on : 10-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Thiru. S. Vimal, Advocate, for the Complainant; Thiru. R. Ka. Prem Coumar, Advocate, for the Opposite Parties

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consumer Protection Act is meant to redress the grievances of consumers related to defect in goods, deficiency in service, unfair trade practise, excess pricing, and spurious goods.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - RTI Act, 2005 - Indian Telegraph Act - [Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(d)(ii), Section 3, Section 24-A; Indian Telegraph Act, Section 7(B); RTI Act, 2005]
Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint for deficiency in service, unfair trade practise, mental agony, humiliation, harassment, discrimination based on caste and status, intimidation, personal sufferings caused due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000 for various issues related to landline and internet services provided by the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:

The court found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay compensation for the unduly collected amount, deficiency in service, mental agony and sufferings, and the cost of the proceedings. Other complaints relating to harassment, fraud, corruption, and discrimination on the basis of caste were deemed beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the complainant is a consumer, whether there is unfair trade practise leading to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, and whether the complaints related to irregularities, corruption, fraud, problem with data card and phone service, information's about internet usage and RTI Act not given, harassment and discrimination on caste were within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was also established that the complaints related to irregularities, corruption, fraud, and discrimination on the basis of caste were beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation for the unduly collected amount, deficiency in service, mental agony and sufferings, and the cost of the proceedings.

ORDER

Tmt. K.K. Ritha, M.A., M.H.R., B.L. Member - The complainant filed the complaint before this Commission for deficiency in service, unfair trade practise, mental agony, humiliation, harassment, discrimination based on caste and status, intimidation, personal sufferings caused due to the act of the three opposite parties mentioned in the complaint and prays for a compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-.

2. The complainant states that the landline connection was not given on seniority basis and lot of irregularities happened 19 years before since BSNL was the only landline service at that time and having monopoly in the landline service. At present, he purchased a data card (Pre-paid) for internet service SIM No. 9489718869 and charged Rs. 1,500/- with the speed of 3G service. It did not provide internet service and it was almost defunct. The matter was taken to the concerned customer care who opined that the problem was due to over-crowding of lines. Hence, the complainant was forced to use the SIM card for mobile phone service. Further, the complainant got two SIM cards which are prepaid. The services are very poor. The complainant states that he used to receive calls starting with 140 and when requested to identify the owners of such numbers, the opposite parties denied. Moreover, his phone numbers are secretly given to private companies for promoting their business without his knowledge and hence his privacy is intruded. The complainant further states and in the month of January and February , 2014, the opposite parties did not provide internet and phone services, but the opposite parties are telling lies that they provided service. Under RTI Act, 2005, the complainant sought for information of internet usage for 2013 and 2014, but he failed to receive the information from the opposite parties on the ground that the data is not available. He has also sought for information under RTI Act about the defaulters list of the telephone bill in Puducherry, but it was not given to him. On 26.12.2014, he gave a representation to the Public Grievance Cell of BSNL Office requesting them to disconnect the unlimited internet usage because the telephone lines were dead. The opposite parties without providing service, charged for the same. Even though he requested to waive the charges for the service not provided, the opposite parties failed to do so. Only from the end of February, 2014, his telephone line was disconnected.

On 13.03.2014, the opposite party No.1 has sent a letter stating that they will take legal action for collecting the dues with penal interest if the amount of Rs. 3,775.45 was not paid. Again, the 1st opposite party sent letters on10.04.2014, 07.05.2014 and 20.06.2014 for payment of the dues. On 23.05.2014, legal notice was sent for payment of the amount. In the first week of May, 2014, the complainant sent a letter to 1st opposite party with his letter dated 26.12.2013 where, he had sought for disconnection of unlimited internet connection.

3. The reply version of the opposite party No. 1:- The O.P. No. 1 states that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "The General Manager, Telephone v. Mr. Krishnan and Another" in Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004, dated 01.09.2009. The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant cannot file a single complaint on several causes of action and so the complainant cannot agitate RTI matters before this Commission. The 1st opposite party states that for landline connection provided on 16.04.1997 to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 3,061/- was returned and the landline was closed on 24.04.2009. A new landline was provided on 13.11.2013 and the last payment was received on 13.11.2013 for Rs. 1,250/-. The averments made by the complainant are false and not supported by any documentary proof. The landline and broadband connections were disconnected since the complainant did not pay th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document