Order-12.
Date-10/11/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainants’ case in short is that they are the consumers / subscribers of telephone No.2441-1850 under the O.P. BSNL. The complainants asked the O.P. vide letter dated 16/01/2016 for disconnection of the subject telephone. The complainants also visited AOTR Office on 23/02/2016 for such purpose but to no good. The complainants also moved to higher authority but to no result. The telephone connection was not disconnected by the O.P. resulting in undue billing. Complainants alleged that the O.P. is deficient in rendering service and that O.P. has also indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainants have prayed for exemption of the billed amount raised by the O.P. as the O.P. has failed and neglected to disconnect the subject telephone as per his letter dated 16/01/2016.
O.P.- BSNL has contested the case in filing W.V. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable either in fact or in Law. It is stated that the complainants submitted a complain addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Kasba Telephone Exchange (2441) on 19/10/2015 mentioning fault of subject telephone being number 2441-1850 since many months resulting excess billing for the month May-2015. But from the system details it appears that the said telephone number was not faulty as alleged and it was restored as per the docket of the complainant from time to time. Complainants submitted another complain to the O.P. dated 16/12/2015 mentioning hiking of telephone bills and closure of account thereof. It is stated that the complainant s were charged with metered calls maintained in the system. It is also stated that the complainants should have appealed to the Commercial Officer in prescribed form along with copy of last bill paid for disconnection. The complainants also sent another letter dated 16/01/2016 for closure of his ECS recovery as well as for closure of subject telephone. The ECS recovery has been withdrawn on 18/01/2016 but the complainants did not appeal to concerned Commercial Officer for disconnection of subject telephone. It is stated that the subject telephone worked up to 20/03/2016 and the subject telephone is under disconnection from 21/03/2016. The O.P. has alleged that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and no question of unfair trade practice also arises. The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether O.P. is deficient in rendering service to the complainants?
- Whether O.P. has adopted unfair trade practice?
- Whether complainantsare entitled get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of the status report of the subject telephone as per docket, Xerox copy of letters, external invoice, bills and other documents on record. It appears that the complainants lodged docket against the fault of the subject telephone to the O.P. from time to time and the connection line of the subject telephone was also restored from time to time as per the dockets registered with the O.P. So it is not true that the subject telephone was lying defunct or dis-functioning since over months together. It also appears that the complainant gave a letter to A.O.T.R. /A.M. BSNL on 16/01/2016 for closure of his ECS recovery and also for disconnection of subject telephone. It appears from the documents on record that ECS recovery has been stopped promptly on 18/01/2016. However, O.P. could not disconnect the subject telephone because the letter was not addressed to concerned Commercial Officer in prescribed departmental proforma with last bill paid voucher as per norms. It appears that the complainant intermingled two things in one letter- Stop of ECS Recovery as well as Disconnection. Moreover, we find that no disconnection letter was sent to concerned Commercial Officer along with copy of last paid bill voucher as per norms. However, we find that the telephone worked up to 20/03/2016 and the telephone has been under disconnection for non-payment of rent since 21/03/2016. It also appears that outstanding bills stand to Rs.3074.39. The subject telephone as it appears functioned up to 20/03/2016- the telephone had incoming and outgoing up to 16/02/2016, from 17/02/2016 till 20/03/2016 only incoming (only rent). It appears that the subject telephone was disconnected there after w.e.f. 21/03/2016 and no rent has been charged therefrom. It also appears that no rent has been charged thereon since the date of disconnection i.e. 21/03/2016. It appears that the complainant did not take the pain to enquire whether his telephone has been disconnected as per his letter dated 16/01/2016 or not. It also appears that he did not comply with the norms of the O.P. for disconnection of the subject telephone.He did not address any letter to concerned Commercial Officer in prescribed department proforma along with copy of last paid bill voucher as per norms. We do not think that onus can be shifted to the O.P. as such for not disconnecting the subject telephone as per his prayer. The fact remains that the complainants have outstanding of bill amount of Rs.3074.39 as alleged by the O.P. The complainant has not cleared off the said outstanding bill. On the contrary, he has moved before this Forum for exemption of the billed amount. We do not find fairness in such prayer / version of the complainant. We are afraid we cannot entertain illegality. We are afraid we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P., least any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. We do not find any merit in the petition of complaint.
The instant case merits no success.
In result, the casefails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
