. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.No.95/2006
Rama Padumale
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Accounts Officer (TR)
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Rama Padumale
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Accounts Officer (TR)
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. K.Shrikanta Shetty
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of filing : 11-08-2006 Date of Order : 31-05-2008 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.95/2006 Dated this, the 31st day of May 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Rama Padumale, S/o.Kanna Bhandari, R/at Door No.KMC.1/231, } Complainant K.R.S.V. House, Near GUP School Adkathbail, Kasaragod.671121. (Adv.Srikanta Shetty, Kasaragod) Accounts Officer,(TR), BSNL, Kasaragod. } Opposite party (Adv.Madhavan Malankad,Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Whether a telephone subscriber can take advantage of an error committed by the BSNL? This is the short question arises for consideration this complaint. The complainant owned a land line telephone connection with No.KSZ/227311 provided by Opposite party under Tatkal scheme by depositing Rs.30,000/-. Except the first monthly bill dtd.11-05-01 for Rs.462/-. He has not paid the subsequent bills since he has got instruction from Opposite party that his bill will be adjusted in his credit balance. Thereafter he received a bill dtd.05-09-2005 for Rs.1,325/-. The bill was challenged by filing CC.152/05 before this Forum. While the matter was pending complainant filed an application before the Forum seeking a direction to Opposite party to refund the credit balance on surrender of the connection. Therefore, Forum directed Opposite party to dispose of the application of the complainant for refund of the account within 1 month from the date of receipt of application for refund. Thereafter complainant received a demand note dated 29-05-2006 from Opposite party asking a sum of Rs.7,102/- being the telephone charges due from him to Opposite party. This complaint is against the issuance of said demand of Rs.7,102/-. 2. According to Opposite party the refundable security under Tatkal scheme after 3 years on surrender of a land line connection obtained is only Rs.18,000/-. The total usage charges of the complainant from 11-05-2001 to 31-03-2006 is Rs.25102/-. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the balance Rs.7,102/-. As per the Rules and terms of the Tatkal scheme, by-monthly bills are not adjustable out of Tatkal deposit amount. But instead of collecting the by monthly usage charges from the complainant the bills were erroneously adjusted towards the security deposit amount which was on credit. But noticing the error in September 2005 complainant served with bill for Rs.1,325/- during September 2005. Against which earlier CC.152/05 was filed and order was passed. As there is no sum in the complainants credit, the letter dated 29-05-2006 for demanding Rs.7,102/- is for the total amount due from complainant after adjusting Tatkal deposit amount Rs.18,000/-. The total due from complainant for the period from 11-05-2001 till 05-05-2006 was Rs.25,102/-.So the balance after adjusting the Tatkal deposit amount will be Rs.7,102/- for which the demand note dated 29-05-2006 was issued. 3. Heard both sides. Exts A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. No documents were produced by Opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the Opposite party committed deficiency in their service by erroneously adjusting the bills to the credit of the complainant by not issuing the bills in time. According to the counsel for the complainant if the bills were issued bi-monthly the consumer would have been aware about the balance in his credit. We find some force in his argument. But that does not mean that complainant is entitled to get waiver of the legal dues he owes to opposite party. But directing him to pay the entire amount in lumpsum will cause him financial burden and hardships. Hence we think it is proper to give him instalments for clearing the dues Rs.7102/-. In the result, the relief sought by the complainant is disallowed. But we direct the Opposite party to allow the complainant to make the payment of Rs.7,102/- in 10 monthly instalment without any interest. We also direct the Opposite party to pay a cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. The payment of first instalment shall be Rs.802/- and the balance 9 instalment shall be Rs.700/- each. We make it clear that the cost of Rs.1,000/- need to paid to the complainant after payments the last monthly instalment as ordered. Time for compliance of this order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Failing which the complainant can approach the Forum for the execution of the orders envisaged under CP Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.24-3-06 copy of application filed by complainant. A2.24-3-06 copy of Order (CDRF, Kasaragod) A3.29-5-06 letter issued by OP to complainant. A4.15-6-06 Demand Note issued by OP to complainant. A5. 21-6-06 copy of lawyer notice. A6. 26-6-06 reply notice. A7. .4-4-06 letter issued by S.D.E. Kasaragod to complainant. A8.13-3-08 letter issued by BSNL Kannur to complainant.
