BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.72/2009 Order dated this the 26th day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Udaya Kumar T.L. R/o 2nd Cross, Kumbarageri Street, J.E. P.W.D Quarters, Srirangapatna Post, Mandya District. (INPERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The General Manager, B.S.N.L., Telecommunication Centre, Mandya District, Mandya. 2. The Junior Assistant, B.S.N.L., Srirangapatna, Mandya 571438. (By Sri.K.C.Chowde Gowda., Legal Cell) Date of complaint 17.06.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 29.06.2009 Date of order 26.08.2009 Total Period 1 Month 28 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/- for deficiency in service. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he had obtained Broad Band connection for domestic purpose with telephone connection bearing No.292565 from Opposite party. He gave a petition on 25.07.2008 to disconnect broad band connection, but they did not. In that connection, he deposited Rs.2,027/- as per the bill no.11142008064378 dated 07.07.2008. Again, he gave a petition to disconnect broad band connection and further on 11.08.2008, 18.08.2008 & 25.08.2008 he gave petition to the 1st Opposite party to give the details of the bills issued, but no action was taken. The Opposite parties have issued 4 bills amounting to Rs.6,481/- totally, though he has not used the facility. In spite of request to disconnect, without considering the same, they are giving mental torture. Therefore, he has sought for compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 3. The 1st Opposite party has filed version and 2nd Opposite party is Sub-ordinate. It is pleaded that the new telephone connection no.292565 with Broad Band facility was provided on 27.06.2008. The customer is educated on account checking procedure at the time of installation of broad band with his portal user ID and passward details through on-line. The customer had received the bills dated 07.08.2008 for Rs.5,536/-, bill dated 07.09.2008 for Rs.716/-, bill dated 07.10.2008 for Rs.144/- and bill dated 07.06.2009 for Rs.95/-. The broad band customer has to pay 3 months minimum guarantee of Rs.250/- for each month. Hence, the issued bills are correct. The Complainant had applied for closure of the broad band facility on 17.07.2008. Hence, the broad band facility is permanently closed on 09.08.2008. The Complainant had applied for the details of the usage on 11.08.2008 and he approached the concerned authority and obtained the information after permanent closure of the broad band facility, the usage details are not available in the system. If the customer desires to obtain the details he has to approach the concerned authorities before the closure of the broad band facility. The Complainant has approached the Forum with malafide intention to avoid the payment of bills. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite party, since the Opposite party had acted in accordance with the rules and regulations of B.S.N.L. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.11. On behalf of the Opposite party one witness is examined and Ex.R.1 to R.3 are produced. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. The Complainant has filed written arguments also. 7. We have perused the records. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the bills issued by the Opposite party are correct? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. The undisputed facts are that the Opposite party provided new telephone connection no.292565 with brand band facility on 27.06.2008 to the Complainant. On 17.07.2008, the Complainant gave a petition to disconnect the broad band facility and on instructions by the Opposite party staff, on 25.07.2008, he paid the bill dated 07.07.2008 for the month of June 2008 and the receipt is Ex.C.7 for Rs.2,027/- and thereafter, the Opposite party has disconnected the broad band facility on 09.08.2008. Thereafter, the Opposite party has issued the bill dated 07.08.2008 for the month of July 2008 for Rs.5,386/- as per Ex.C.4 and again issued the bill Ex.C.5 dated 07.09.2008 for the month of August 2008 for Rs.696/-. The Complainant questioning the bill dated 07.08.2008 as per Ex.C.4 gave a petition to give the particulars of the calls, as per Ex.C.9 on 11.08.2008, but no action was taken. Therefore, he gave a petition dated 25.08.2008 as per Ex.C.11 by courier as per Ex.C.10, but no reply was sent. Again as per Ex.C.8 on 17.09.2008 he gave a petition mentioning the subject abnormal bills and earlier petition, has sought for disconnection of the telephone connection also stating that he has received the bill for Rs.716/- from 01.08.2008 to 31.08.2008, though he has not used the telephone for calling. According to the Opposite party, the customer was educated at the time of installation of broad band with his portal user ID and passward details through on-line to check the account of the broad band service. Though, he applied for permanent closure of broad band service on 25.07.2008, the broad band service is permanently closed on 09.08.2008 after observing the Departmental formalities. According to the evidence of R.W.1, only after the deposit of arrears by the customers, the office takes the application and disconnects the broad band facility. Of course, to cancel the broad band facility, the office has to check whether there is any due or not. But, the customer has also duty not to use the broad band facility and without user of brand band facility, the bill would not come for using the brand band facility. 11. According to the Opposite party evidence, the customer has to pay rental charges of Rs.250/- per month atleast for minimum of 3 months to get disconnection. Though as per the letter dated 17.07.2008 only after deposit of the first bill for Rs.2,027/-, the Office has received the letter on 25.07.2008 and then disconnected on 09.08.2008 and when the bill of August 2008 as per Ex.C.5 was issued, though minimum charges is Rs.250/- for the broad band, they have charged Rs.475/-, there is no explanation for this imposition of Rs.475/- instead of Rs.250/- minimum, because as per the bill itself, the broad band usage is only 18 MB and free MB also 18 and no charges is calculated for the usage of the broad band, in that case only the minimum guarantee of Rs.250/- is to be charged, but Rs.475/- is levied and there is no justification for issuing of this bill. Further, as per Ex.C.5, the Complainant has used the telephone making 75 calls out of this 50 calls is free and for 25 calls Rs.25/- charges is imposed. The Complainant has deposed that he has not at all used the telephone during August 2008. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.3, if we calculate the calls, the total call is less than 75, but in the bill it is stated the metered calls is 75. Therefore, the bill issued as per Ex.C.5 is not based on any documents of the Opposite party Office and it is a abnormal bill. 12. Further, though the Complainant sought for disconnection of the phone facility on 17.09.2008, as per the Opposite party, it was disconnected on 20.10.2008 on the ground of non-payment of outstanding bills. According to the Opposite party evidence, though the Complainant sought for disconnection of the telephone facility, it was not disconnected as the instrument was not returned, but it was disconnected on 20.10.2008 due to non-payment of arrears. Even though, the Opposite party is entitled to disconnect the phone facility or broad band facility for non-payment of arrears, when the customer gives a petition for closure of the broad band facility or phone facility, he should have reply with reasons. 13. Further, the Complainant sought for the particulars of usage of the broad band on receipt of the bill as per Ex.C.4 for the month of July 2008 for Rs.5,386/-, but no action was taken and no reply was made in spite of another letter Ex.C.9 & C.11. It is admitted by the witness of the Opposite party that there was no impediment to write on the application that after the closure of the broad band facility, the particulars of usage are not available in the system or to address a letter in that manner to the Complainant. It is admitted by the Opposite party witness that no reply was sent to the letters of the Complainant. Since, the Opposite party is a service provider it ought to have responded to the grievances of the customer and customer will not be aware of all the rules of the B.S.N.L. and nothing prevented the Opposite party to endorse on the petitions given by the Complainant or to send a letter stating that the particulars of usage of broad band are not available, since the broad band facility is disconnected. Therefore, the telephone bill Ex.C.5 containing charges of Rs.475/- for broad band facility, though the minimum charges of Rs.250/- and though the calls are less than 75 in the calculation sheet produced by the Opposite party, the Complainant is charged 75 calls, therefore this Ex.C.5 bill is not according to rules of the Opposite party. Further, the Opposite party has failed to respond to the petitions of the Complainant in not furnishing the details of broad band facility. If the Opposite party had responded to the Complainant stating that the usage particulars are not available on account of closure of the broad band facility, the Complainant would not have grounds to approach the Forum making complaint against the Opposite party. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 14. Though, the Complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.75,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, for the deficiency in service of the Opposite party, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.4,000/-. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
