B.S.N.L. vs TAPAN KR. BISWAS

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-1 on 8.5.2003. The facts of the case in brief are stated here. The complainant is a consumer under the O.P. in respect of the telephone connection. The complainant is a businessman. He received a telephone bill dated 15.2.2002 for a sum of Rs. 744/-. The complainant paid that bill on 8.3.2002 at Tollygunge Post Office which was the due date for such payment. But the O.P. disconnected arbitrarily the facility of all outgoing calls from the aforesaid telephone on 20.3.2002. According to the complainant such disconnection of the facility of outgoing calls amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service for such disconnection of the facility of outgoing calls the complainant had to suffer great loss in his profession and business from 20.3.2002. Thereafter he filed a case before the District Forum praying for a direction upon the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as damages and compensation and cost for mental agony of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE Forum in its order directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as professional losses, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs of the case, within 10 says from the date of getting the order. It is also stated by the Forum that if the O.P. failed to pay the amount within 30 days the aforesaid total amount would bear interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order till the same is paid in full. Being dissatisfied with the above order the appellant B.S.N.L. has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that information of the payment was not received by the department in time, and this led to the temporary disconnection. There was no deficiency on the part of the department for such delayed information. It is submitted by the appellant that in the instant matter it was necessary to make the postal department as a party, but the complainant failed to do it. As there was no deficiency on its part the question of compensation, cost and award for professional losses does not arise. According to the appellant the impugned judgment is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

On careful perusal of the documents and records and hearing both the sides we notice that the present respondent paid his telephone bill dated 15.2.2002 for a sum of Rs. 744/- within the due date i.e., 8.3.2002 at Tollygunge Post Office in cash. But the department-appellant disconnected the facility of outgoing calls from the telephone arbitrarily on 20.3.2002 without prior notice. In this respect we are of the opinion that through such action the Telephone Department (B.S.N.L.) has shown utter carelessness. The appellant took the plea that he did not receive the information of the payment in time. In this respect we are of the clear view that the respondent paid his telephone bill in time at one of the enlisted Post Office i.e., the Tollygunge Post Office. It was the responsibility of the Telephone Department to ensure a proper system of communication with the Post Office entrusted with receiving telephone bills. It is submitted by the appellant that in the instant matter it was necessary to make the postal department as a party, but the complainant failed to do it. In this respect we are of the clear view that there was no contract between the Post Office and the respondent. The respondent deposited his telephone bills at the authorised Post Office of the appellant-B.S.N.L. So it was not necessary to make the Post Office as a party to dispose of the case. We have observed that the case was heard by the Forum below elaborately and the Forum passed its judgment, considering the materials on records and the law points involved in the matter. In our opinion the observation of the Forum was quite in order and we are not inclined to interfere with the same except the amount of compensation etc. The Forum has awarded of Rs. 5,500/- in total for compensation, cost, and professional losses. In this respect it is curious enough that while the outgoing facility of the telephone line was withdrawn for 55 days, the respondent kept silent without making any communication with the department. So, the respondent also was not diligent enough. Be it mentioned that the department has sanctioned rental rebate for the period from 19.3.2002 to 14.5.2002 i.e., 55 days. We are of the opinion that, as the respondent has deposited the bill in question in time, the withdrawal of the facility of outgoing calls was certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the B.S.N.L.-appellant. Perusing the facts mentioned above, we are however inclined to reduce the total amount of award from Rs. 5,500/- to 2,500/-.

HENCE, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) in total to the present respondent within one month from the date of getting this order. The appellant may adjust this amount with the subsequent bills of the respondent. The appellant shall grant the rental rebate for 55 (fifty five) days, if not paid. Therefore, the appeal succeeds in part on contest and the impugned judgment of the Forum below is modified as stated above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.