IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31th day of August, 2011
Filed on 12.10.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.258/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Bharath Tourist Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Service Society Alappuzha Telecome District
Reg No A-112, Raiban Shopping, BSNL office, Near Pitchu Iyer Jn,
Complex, Jetty Road, Alappuzha
Rep. by its Secretary . Alappuzha. (Adv. K.B. Singhu)
(Adv. Tommy Mathew)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case succinctly is as follows: - The complainant was running an internet dabha. For the said purpose, the complainant availed the required telephone and broad band connection from the opposite party. The complainant was promptly paying off the bills issued by the opposite party from time to time. The complainant had been using the internet facility very moderately. Resultantly, the bill used to have issued by the opposite party was analogous to the complainant’s use. When matters stood thus, on 3rd August 2009, the opposite party issued a bill calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.27712/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand seven hundred twelve only ). The complainant approached the opposite party forthwith, and the complainant was apprised of that there in the bill some sort of slip-up crept in which would be rectified shortly. Notwithstanding this, the opposite party on 7th December 2009, 7th January 2010 and 7th March 2010 issued three bills each amounting to Rs.4645/-(Rupees Four thousand six hundred forty five only ), and another bill dated 7th February 2010 for an amount of Rs.6018/-(Rupees Six thousand eighteen only).The complainant on umpteen occasions, requested the opposite party in writing and otherwise to withdraw the illegal bills. The opposite party, now issued another one afresh dated 3rd August 2009 for an amount of Rs.9435.70/-(Rupees Nine thousand four hundred thirty five and seventy paisa only ) and on 11th February 2010 severed the complainant’s telephone
connection. The bills the opposite party issued are vague, arbitrary and illegal. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. Got aggrieved on this the opposite party approached this Forum seeking to set aside the controversial bill and, for other relief.
2. On notice being sent, the opposite party appeared and filed version. The crux of the opposite party’s contentions is that the Broad Band connection was provided to the complainant on 11th July 2005 under plan 1200(business) in line with the complainant’s request, on payment of Rs.4849/-(Rupees Four thousand eight hundred forty nine only ) vide demand note 07619 on the same date. Consequent to some technical reasons, bills for monthly fixed charge and usage charge were not being issued to the complainant till the bill dated 3rd August 2009. According to the opposite party, in the aforesaid bill dated 3rd August 2009, the monthly fixed charge for the Broad band was levied only from November 2007. Consequent to the disconnection of the telephone, an application dated 13th August 2009 was lodged by the complainant requesting to render installments for the payment of the bill amount. On the basis of the complainant’s request, the bill dated 3rd August 2009 was revised to the lesser amount, and considering the complainant’s case as a special one telephone line was reconnected. The complainant has still failed to payoff the revised bill, the opposite party alleges. The complainant was well aware that monthly charge for broad band connection was not included in the bills paid by the complainant. The complainant is liable to payoff Rs.9436/-(Rupees Nine thousand four hundred thirty six only ) to the opposite party. The opposite party didn’t committed deficiency of service. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party fervently contends.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the chief accounts officer filed proof affidavit, and documents Exbts B I to B4 were marked.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the bill dated 3rd August 2009the opposite party issued to the complainant is legal?
(2) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously perused the pleadings, proof affidavits and other materials put on record by the parties. It appears that the bone of the contentions between the parties is the bill dated 3rd August 2009 for an amount of Rs.90435.70/-( Rupees Nine thousand four hundred thirty five and seventy paisa only ), the opposite party issued to the complainant. The complainant’s specific contention is that the complainant had duly paid off the entire bill the opposite party issued. Strangely still, the opposite party issued a bill dated 3rd August 2009 for an amount of Rs.27712/-(Twenty seven thousand seven hundred twelve only ). There after the complainant on several occasions approached the opposite party directly’ and otherwise, and disputed the said bill. Resultantly, the complainant was issued another bill afresh dated 3rd August 2009 for an amount of Rs.9435.70/-(Rupees Nine thousand four hundred thirty five and seventy paisa only ). Bearing the said contentions of the complainant alive in mind, we anxiously analyzed the contentions put forth by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the complainant was provided the material connection on 11th July 2005 on the complainant remitting an amount Rs.4849/-( Rupees Four thousand eight hundred forty nine only ) vide demand note 07619 on the same date. But due to some technical reasons best known only to the opposite party, the monthly fixed charge and usage charge of the ’Broad Band connection’ were not included in the bill issued to the complainant. It is worthwhile to notice that in the Exbt A3 notice issued to the complainant, the opposite party states that the connection was made available to the complainant on payment of Rs.2400/-( Rupees two thousand four hundred only ). In the said letter, price of modem or other charges are not conspicuously referred to further on a bare look of Exbt Al bill goes to show that the opposite party initially issued the said bill for an amount of Rs.27712/-
( Rupees Twenty seven thousand seven hundred twelve only ). The opposite party contends that down to technical reasons monthly fixed charge and usage charge were omitted to have been included in the bills issued to the complainant. Though the opposite party referred to ’technical reasons’, it seems that the opposite party is not at all prepared to divulge in detail what the said technical reasons are likewise, for ’special reasons’ the opposite party revised the said bill to a much lesser amount of Rs.9435.70/-(Nine thousand four hundred thirty five and seventy paisa only) . Here also the opposite party studiously left out the ’special reason’ to one’s imagination and surmise. Thus, going by the facts and circumstance of the instant case it appears that the material bill issued by the opposite party is unspecific and dubious. That apart, the opposite party has no case that the complainant defaulted any other bill issued to him. Rather, the opposite party admits that the complainant has paid off the other entire bill amounts. It is momentous to go through the contention of the opposite party to the effect that complainant was well aware that the monthly charge of the Broad Band connection was not included in the bills paid by him. Even if it IS assumed that the said charges were actually included in the bills issued to the complainant, it is definitely the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. We are of the view that the complainant cannot be heard to be held liable for the wrong committed by the opposite party. We have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party committed deficiency of service.
6. For the forgoing facts and findings herein above, the interim order already passed in the present case is made absolute. We further hold that the bill dated 3rd August 2009 bearing No.95578991 for an amount of Rs.90435.70/-( Rupees Nine thousand four hundred thirty five and seventy paisa) issued to the complainant by the opposite party stands cancelled. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only ) to the complainant as cost. The said opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2011.
Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Copy of Telephone bill dated 03/08/2009
Ext.A2 - The Outstanding dues bill
Ext. A3 - Letter issued by opposite party to complainant
Ext. A4 - Request of complainant to opposite party dated 04/03/2010
Ext. A5 - Letter given to opposite party by complainant
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext. B1 - The copy of letter given to opposite party by complainant dated
13.08.2009.
Ext. B2 - Copy of the letter issued to opposite party by complainant dated 4/3/10 .
Ext. B3 - Copy of the letter issued to opposite party by complainant dated 4/3/10
Ext. B4 - Copy of the letter given by complainant to opposite party dated 21.04.2010
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
