BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA. Complaint No. 61 of 2011 Date of Instt. ..11.05.2011 Date of Decision :..18.05.2011 Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 (Pb) 094173-06415 (M) ...............Complainant Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Telephone Exchange Building, Phagwara. 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telcom District CTO Complex, Jalandhar. 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telephone Exchange Building, Room No. 1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 ---------------------------------------------------------- Respondents. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Shri Surinder Mohan (President) Mrs. Shashi Narang (Member) Present: Shri Rajneesh Madhok complainant in person. ORDER Surinder Mohan (President) 1. Heard, Complaint be registered. This order will decide the present complaint at preliminary stage. Rajneesh Madhok has filed the present complaint against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others on the grounds that the Broad Band Connection from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Phagwara office was taken by him by depositing Rs 5515/-. Due to deficient service of service provider, the information regarding the deficiency in service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited collected from department and it is proved tht the department could not provide proper service to the consumers. The Department provided misleading information on various points and the Refund sought on deficient service and amount charged under unfair trade practice not refunded as per the deposited amount and failed to provide any guidelines framed by the Department of Telecommunication. The complainat filed various representations about fault Broad Band connection and inflated bills, but the complainant failed to get justice. The representations were also made to different authorities to refund the amount illegally charged from the consumer, but the Department failed to settle the claim sought. The complainant spent Rs 3000/- towards collection of information which was not provided to the applicant and due to negligence of the BSNL, the complainant has to be present in Central Information Commission to get the sought information and again vague and misleading reply by dodging the complainant, the Broad Band was faulty due to OFC cable cutting by NHAI according to reply by opposite party No. 1. The document submitted with letter dated 24.2.2010 that 100 pair of OFC cable and 50 Pair of OFC damaged. Any manufacturer worldwide has never manufactured the said sizes of OFC cables. So the BSNL is dodging the consumers by giving vague and misleading reply. This is deficiency in Service. As per reply dated 2.3.2010, the misleading information provided that the fault was due to old Broad Band system of Phagwara. As the complainant's system is created unde new system as informed by Mr. Gurcharan Singh TTA while providing the connection. The misleading and vague reply is deficiency in service. The information provided by BSNL, D.E. (Phones) vide letter dated 9.4. 2010 has again deficiencies. That there is unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite parties. A relief has been sought that the respondents are misleading the complainant and they be directed to refund full amount deposited with BSNL without any termination charges and service tax charges, that complainant may be compensated towards expenses met by him in getting misleading information, that complainant may be provided exemplary costs, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for tension and mental physical agony. Further prayer has been made that opposite parties be directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per loss suffered and to pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum, to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses, the complainant be compensated for the period of Broad Band connection failed to connect and amount charged under unfair trade practice by BSNL, to take action against the official with whose negligence, the consumer has to suffer an action may be directed to be initiated against officials those have provided vague and misleading information to the consumer. 2. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the file. The complainant has sought number of reliefs from BSNL due to alleged deficiencies in services. He has also sought refund of Rs 5515/- and refund of full amount deposited with BSNL and amount for mental and physical agony as well as tension etc. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case with the General Manager Telecom Versus M. Krishnan another reported as 2009 (8) SCC 481, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that there is special remedy provided under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegarph Act regarding he disputes in respect of telephone bills, then remedy under Consumer protection Act is by implication barred. The Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the Apex Court judgment referred above in a case with title as Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Sudarshan Kumar in first appeal No. 668 of 2005, decided on 24.2.2011. Similarly, the Hon'ble Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 671 of 2009 decided on 29.1.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar has also followed the above said Apex Court Authority. Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the above said authority in first appeal No. 642 of 2009 decided on 29.12.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Jagdish Lal. All these authorities were related to private telecommunication companies. The Hon'ble Apex Court has given its verdict in the case of Government Agency. Therefore, we are of the view that this Forum can not take cognizance of the complaint as the jurisdiction is barred. Therefore, the complaint is ordered to be returned. The complainant may file appropriate application for appointment of an arbitrator. The complaint be returned against a proper receipt. Photostat copies of complaint and its documents attached with the complaint be retained. Original documents be returned. Copy of the order be communicated to the complainant free of costs. Photostat papers retained by this forum be consigned to the record room. Dated: Sd/- Sd/- 18.5.2011 Member Member Certified to be a true copy Raman Sharda Superintendent, Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala 20/6/2011 Rubber Stamp put on order: 1. Case No. 61/2011
Sr. No. 299 Dt 20/6/2011 Sd/- Signature with date. =============================================== |
The Right to Information Act 2005, is the biggest fraud inflicted upon on the citizens since the Nehru-Gandhi family.
No comments:
Post a Comment