Appellant had taken international roaming facility from BSNL but the service failed to work in 8 different countries - CIC directed the PIO to provide of copy e-mail exchanged regarding the appellant’s complaint & warned him to exercise due care in future
The applicant has sought the following information:-
1. Whether any investigation was carried out about the failure of the SIM to provide international roaming facilities? What were the findings? Were these communicated to the customer? These may be now supplied along with the details of the agency that carried out the investigation.
2. What was the justification for deducting Rs. 276 from the deposit for a service which completely failed? What is the breakdown of Rs. 276?
3. What are the ruled for levying charges for total failure of service? Who is empowered to take a final decision? Was my claim put to such an authority & what was his decision?
4. Is it accepted that senior citizen customer would have to spend excessively, undergo harassment and worry due to failure of the service? What is the provision to accept a claim for compensation? Who is the final authority? Was my claim put to him & what was his decision?
5. Is there a laid down limit for returning the deposit? Is it laid down that deposit kept beyond this period will be entitled to interest?
6. If there is no laid down rule, then who is the official to determine the period after which interest on deposit should be paid to the customer? Was my case put up for interest payment to this authority & what were the orders for having kept the deposit for almost 4 months after surrendering the connection?
7. Was failures of Ms. Bhide (Mobile 9422003200) and AO CMTS, Pune to provide service investigated? What were the findings? Was it not considered desirable to offer feedback to the complainant?
8. Reason for none of the communications to PGM being acknowledged or replied should be investigated? Findings may be communicated to me.
9. Was any opinion obtained for the notice dated 06/09/2013, refusal to accept cheque for Rs. 4724 in settlement & extending the date of return of the notice 07/10/2013? What was the opinion?
10. Office copies of all my communications to AO CMTS, Pune, and PGM through OSD and directly with annotations/comments if any on these along with notings about these communications anywhere else should be supplied. Copies of all letters, e-mails, note of telephonic communications, notings in any form and at all the locations whatsoever concerning my case be supplied.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Gp. Capt. H. Kaushal VSM Retd through VC
Respondent: Mr. T H Patil CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that he has not received any satisfactory reply to his RTI application dated 08/10/2013. He submitted that he had taken international roaming facility from the BSNL and had gone on overseas tour but to his dismay the international service failed to work in 8 different countries. On return he surrendered his instrument and requested the BSNL to investigate why the service did not work and when no reply was received for three months he wrote to them for refunding the entire amount and also claiming token compensation of Rs.1500/- for the harassment and inconvenience caused to him. He stated that he wants to know the procedure for claiming refund along with overdue interest and compensation. The CPIO’s representative stated that there are rules for refund of principal amount within 60 days from the date the service is surrendered but no rules have been prescribed either for payment of interest or for compensation. He informed that they had issued a cheque for Rs.4724/- in favour of the appellant on 17/09/2013. The appellant contested stating that even after 5 months of surrendering the service the refund was not given and all his communications to various authorities remained unresponded. To a query the CPIO’s representative informed that the SIM was investigated but no flaw was detected but he was unable to explain why copy of e-mail(s) was not given to the appellant.
The appellant pointed out that the FAA in his order 13/12/2013 has stated that his RTI application is a grievance. He has also explained that the CPIO’s reply was delayed as the RTI application was transferred to the CPIO mobile. The appellant argued that if it was so what was the need to refer his RTI application to the CPIO mobile.
The CPIO is directed to provide copy e-mail exchanged regarding the appellant’s complaint of his SIM not working. The appellant is deeply anguished with the services of BSNL. In our opinion, such a callous and whimsical behaviour on the part of the service provider who deals with the public at large cannot be treated lightly. The Commission hopes that the PGM Telephones will look into the matter and take appropriate steps to improve the services so that customers do not face harassment. The CPIO, who received the appellant’s RTI application, is warned to exercise due care for future to ensure that the correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per the provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated in future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Gp. Capt. H. Kaushal v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000453/6904