Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 30th day of December, 2004
C.D.No.161/2003
K.Balashowry Reddy,
S/o Late K.Bali Reddy,
H.No.41/93,
N.R.Peta,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri.CH.Joga Rao, Advocate.
-Vs-
- Accounts Officer,
Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate
- General Manager,
Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kurnool District. . . . Opposite party
ORDER
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is field under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party to rectify the meter reading and excess billing, to furnish detailed billing to refund the amount of excess billing if paid. Not to disconnect the telephone service for the non-payment of two bills of Rs.2,312/- dated 06-07-2003 and Rs.4,569/- of bill dated 06-03-2003, to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- for the suffered mental agony and costs of this litigation and other reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is the customer to the opposite party since 31-05-1992 i.e., since the date of installation of the telephone connection, paying usual demand of Rs.1,000/- for each bill regularly without any default. While such is so he was served with an inflated demand bill for Rs.1,904/- in the month of January. Hence, he has given complaint to the Chief Accounts Officer, Kurnool seeking for rectification of any defect for inflated billing paying the said bill on 31-01-2003 vide receipt No.301193310. But subsequently also a demand bill was caused for Rs.1,904/- and on it also he has lodged a complaint with the concerned authorities paying the said demand of Rs.1,904/- under the receipt No.202131731 dated 03-05-2003. Even then a demand for Rs.4,312/- was caused on the complainant for the period of 01-05-2003 to 30-06-2003. Hence he has lodged another complaint as to the excess billing with the Chief Accounts Officer, Kurnool and got a reply as to this correctness of the said bill requiring him to pay the same and the phone service was disconnected on 15-07-2003. On appeal to the General Manager, Telecommunication, Kurnool, as the Accounts Officer issued a provisional bill for Rs.2,000/- the complainant remitted the said amount on 17-09-2003 and got restored the phone connection. Thereafter another bill of demand for Rs.4,569/- was caused on the complainant for the period of 01-07-2003 to 31-08-2003. He complained against the said bill to the Accounts Officer, Kurnool. Instead of getting a reply his service was disconnected on 29-09-2003 and on 22-10-2003 the complainant was informed by the Accounts Officer as to the non acceptance of the complainant’s appeal and requiring him to pay the balance of Rs.2,312/- of the bill of 01-05-2003 to 30-06-2003 and of Rs.4,569/- within 7 days of a receipt of the said intimation. The above excess billing occurred on account of not noting the correct consumption in spite of his several requests and the said wrong recording amounts to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party to the complainant consumer. The said billing was an inflated one a there was no possibility from his side to have more use of the phone. The acts of the opposite party involved him to make many trips to the opposite party and burdened his pocket besides causing much mental agony.
3. In pursuance of the service of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant, while the opposite party No.1 contested that he case by filing written version denying liability of it and any alleged deficiency of service on his part towards the complainant, the opposite party No.2 remained absent to the proceedings remaining expart.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the justness and the maintainability of the complainant’s case deny of any improper calculation of the bills as the complaint of excess billing on account of defect in meter was thoroughly investigated by the excess metering committee which observed the line, meter and all covered equipment of the complainant’s telephone functioning quite normal and there is no jumping of the meter and hence was informed accordingly vide letter dated 24-02-2003 and 05-09-2003 requiring the complainant to pay the amount of the said bills due. There was no lapse of service on its part as excess metering committee on the thorough investigation of the complainant’s complaint has found no defect in the meter and the bill of the demand was given on correct noting of the meter used and in the circumstances the complainant has not entitled to pay rebate in the disputed bills. As technically for the STD calls only a detailed call facility could be provided, it cannot arrange the detailed call facility for the remaining calls such as of local calls, group dialing facility calls, and 95 facility calls with which also the telephone of the complainant was provided. As the billing was proper and the no excess billing or nay defect in the meter, line equipment functioning devices, denies of the alleged cause of action and the alleged deficiency of service and so seek the dismissal of the complainant’s case with costs.
5. In substantiation of the contention while the complainant’s relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of the compliant averments, the opposite parties side has taken reliance its own sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service of the opposite parties towards him to entitle him to the reliefs sought?
7. The Ex.A1 letter dated 05-09-2003 of the Accounts Officer to the complainant, requiring the complainant to pay Rs.4,312/- demanded in the bill dated 06-07-2003m as no false metering or fault in the associated equipment was detected on thorough investigation of the complainant’s complaint dated 04-08-2003 on the said bill dated 06-07-2003 marked in the Ex.A2.
8. The Ex.A3 demand bill for Rs.4,469/- for the consumed calls of period 01-07-2003 to 31-08-2003 payable on or before 30-09-2003 and with a late fee of Rs.100/- thereon after 30-09-2003 till disconnection dated of 20-10-2003.
9. The receipts in Ex.A4 find no much relevancy to the point in controversy in this case as they envisage the payments of the amount therein on 06-03-2003, 31-01-2003 and 06-07-2003 i.e., of the period much earlier to the demands in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
10. The unattested Xerox letter dated 21-10-2003 filed by the complainant along with complaint says the complaint of excess billing regarding the bills dated 06-07-2003 and 06-09-2003 were carefully considered and the no circumstances were found warranting for grant of any rebate and hence requiring him to pay the balance of amount of Rs.2,312/- in 06-07-2003 bill and the demand amount of bill dated 06-09-2003 within 7 days of the receipt of the said letter of intimation.
11. There is no record from the complainant’s side as to the payments of the said amounts intimated in the supra stated letter dated 21-10-2003. Hence in disconnection, on account of default of the payment of the said amounts, does not fall under any deficiency of service especially when the complaint as to excess billing or any defect in the meter was said to have been thoroughly investigated and found no defect in the meter, its alignment line and equipment.
12. The letter date d 24-02-2003 in response to the complaint dated 06-01-2003 of the complainant, letter dated 05-09-2003 on the complaint dated 04-08-2003 of the complainant as to the excess metering filed along with the written version of the opposite party also envisages as to the thorough investigation of the said complaint and the no defect in the meter, its alignment line and its equipment. There appears no such cogent material from the complainant’s side to doubt or discredit the bonafidies of the said testing and the observations informed by the opposite party.
13. During the arguments the complainant’s side has taken out attention to the page No.501 to 503 and 509 of swamy’s treatise on telephone rules dealing with the procedures to be followed in case of excess metering compliant as per which the investigation to the complaints of the excess metering has to be done as laid down under Rule 6.1 to 6.8 enunciated in page Nos. 509 and 510 of the said book and the details of the investigation reply is to be sent to subscriber by the District Engineer and the power of authority of deal with the excess billing complaints was bested with the Deputy Area Manager in the District and the Telecom District Engineer in the telecom circles for the period bills of each connection ranging from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,000/- for the 3 billing periods in a financial year and the Area Manager and Chief General Manager of the Telephones systems as two more channels for redressal of the complaint grievances not satisfied with the findings and investigations and the observations communicated. But there being no corresponding pleading in the complaint as to the non compliance of any such established procedures by the opposite parties in settling his complaints as to excess billing and thereby for alleging any deficiency of service of the opposite parties on his part, any amount of such procedures and their non compliance shall not remain available to the complainant for taking any consideration of them in his favour of this case.
14. Now as to the aspect of the opposite parties not furnishing the complainant detailing calls which may justify the amount demanded in the questioned bills. The submission of the opposite party in this regard is that it is not possible technically when various facilities such as local call, group dialing, 95 facility apart from the STD facility to phone to various phone services such as Airtel, TATA, BSNL and Reliance cell phones was provided to the complainant’s phone with the dynamic locking facility and as the said detailed bill could be technically possible only it STD calls. Neither the said fact being contradicted by the complainant nor any cogent material to that of the opposite parties submissions entitling the complainant to make a demand for the detailed call particulars as a matter of right is placed by the complainant, there appears no much merit and force in the said contentions of the complainant to assess any deficiency of service on the opposite parties on that count of not furnishing any detailed particulars of the calls justifying the noted units of consumption and the amount demanded for availing the said units of the phone service.
15. Therefore, in the result of the above discussion there being no merit and force in the cause of action, alleged deficiencies and in the claim made, the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought and consequently, the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court, this the 30th day of December, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nill For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Letter dated 05-09-2003 of Accounts Officer iii O/o GMTD BSNL to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Bill dated 06-06-2003 for the months from 01-05-2003 to 30-06-2003 for Rs.4,312/- issued by opposite party to the complainant regarding to the telephone No.220622 of the complainant.
Ex.A3 Bill dated 06-09-2003 for the months from 01-07-2003 to 30-08-2003 for Rs.4,569/- issued by opposite party to the complainant regarding to the telephone No.220633 of the complainant.
Ex.A4 Receipt No.204 dated 06-07-2003 (Provisional bill part payment) for Rs.2,000/- paid on 17-09-2003 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
