BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., L.L.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member
Wednesday the 28th day of February 2007
C.C.No.100/2006
M.D. Habeebuddin, S/o. Jabbarmiya, Muslim, aged about 75 years,
R/o. H.No.28/809, N.G.Os Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The S.D.O.P., Sub Divisional Officer, Phones,
B.S.N.L. (S.D.O.P.) OppChandrasekhar Talkies, Nandyal.
2. The Accounts Officer, (T.R), B.S.N.L.
Telecom District, Near Govt., Press, Kurnool. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Honb’le President
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.3,493/- together with interest at 24% per annum, Rs.50,000/- compensation, Rs,50,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/- alleging negligence of the opposite parties in recording 58 wrong bills on complainant’s phone number 248544 from 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 for calls to mobile number 9949289953 to which the complainant is having any concern and thereby the normal usual billing of Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month shooted up to Rs.1,175/- Rs.2,318/- in the month of march February, - march 2006, and April and May 2006 respectively. The said raise in bill was on account of unauthorized taping on the complainant’s phone by unknown persons either from office or from the line of opposite parties.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filling written version of the opposite party No.2 and its adoption by its opposite party No.1, denying any of their liability and seeking the dismissal of the complainant’s case.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.2 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case in law and facts and requiring the strict proof of complaint averments, submits that there is any lapse of service on its part to the complainant and the bills of consumption are computer generated which reflects the calls actually consumed and so there is any possibility for unauthorised taping especially when the complainant’s phone is provided with dynamic locking facility to avoid any misuse of said telephone by the others and as per the chart furnishing the locking and unlocking particulars of the dynamic locking system of the complainant’s phone it appears that the said phone was kept unlocked for most of the period during 10-04-2006 to 15-05-2006 and all the calls from that phone of the complainant occurred during its unlocking period itself and hence the complainant’s awareness or unawareness of the so called unknown mobile number to which 97 calls were observed remains immaterial and any concern to the opposite parties and there is any negligence in preparing bills and no bill was paid by the complainant under any protest and so any refund of bill arises and hence any of its liability to the complainant’s claim.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on the Ex.B1 and B2 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether any deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties is made out in the so called excess billing of the complainant’s phone and thereby any liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim:?
6. The Ex.A1 is the demand bill for consumed calls of complainant’s phone number 248544 for the period 01-04-2006 to 31-05-2006 demanding the payment of Rs.2,318/-. While the Ex.A2 is the normal call billing record pertaining to the complainant’s phone number 248544 envisaging the particulars of the calls made from the complainant’s phone with reference to the date and time of call and its duration during the period from 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006. The Ex.B2 is the said record covering the period from 01-02-2006 to 31-05-2006 and the Ex.B1 is the record envisaging the detailed particulars of locking particulars of the complainant’s phone during the period 10-04-06 to 15-05-06. The perusal of the Ex.B1 indicates of the particulars when the complainant’s phone, which is provided with dynamic locking facility is unlock and the perusal of the Ex.B1 in the light of the Ex.A2 indicates that the alleged calls to said mobile number, which is said to be unknown to the complainant, occurred from the complainant’s phone during its unlocking period itself. When a dynamic locking facility is provided to complainant’s phone for avoiding any misuse or abuse of said phone of the complainant from others, it is for the complainant to avail said facility carefully and cautiously without giving any room for any negligence on his part and if otherwise he can not blame for his careless acts which must have facilitated the abuse or misuse of complainant’s phone by unauthorised to the no knowledge of the complainant.
7. The complainant alleges his earlier months consumptions of his phone was Rs.400/- to Rs.500/-. The disputed bill in Ex.A1 to which the excess billing was the alleged by the complainant, pertains to the calls consumed during 01-04-06 to 31-05-06. No immediate preceding months demand bills for the calls consumed on complainant’s phone is filed by the complainant in substantiation of his said stand of normal billing, as the bill in Ex.A4, which pertains to the period of the consumed calls in between 01-04-2005 to 31-05-2005 also shows a demand of Rs.1,175/- . Hence, there appears any bonafidies and truth in his contention of normal billing of Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- and to find out any excess in the bill of Ex.A1.
8. The complainant not even placed any cogent material to the effect that he has agitated as to the so called excess billing of Ex.A1 before the opposite parties seeking any redressal or appears to have made the payment of demanded bill in Ex.A1 under any protest. Hence, filling of this case by the complainant without any cogent material in substantiation of his contentions, making exorbitant claims to amount, appears to be a speculative one with an intention to have an undue monitory gain making use of this case proceedings as a flat farm.
9. Hence, there being any cogent material record to believe the so called billing in Ex.A1 as excess and any malafide concern of the opposite parties in the so called calls from complainant’s phone to an unknown mobile number in Ex.A3, there appears any merit and force in the case of the complainant to hold any liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim.
10. Consequently, the case of the complainant being devoid of merit and force, it is dismissed. In the circumstances each of the parties to this case bear there costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 28th day of February, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:Nil For the Opposite Parties : Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Telephone Demand bill Dt:06-06-06 issued to complainant.
Ex.A2 computerized call billing records dt:01-05-06 to 31-05-06.
Ex.A3 Attested xerox copy of Airtel Pre-paid enrolment Forum pertaining to cell
No.9949389952.
Ex.A4 B.S.N.L. bill, Dt:06-06-05.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Locking particulars of phone No.248544 for the period from 10-04-06 to
15-05-06.
Ex.B2 Cell particulars from 01-02-06 to 31-05-06 of the calls to the complainant
phone No.248544. (No.in 6 pages).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
