Date of Filing:18.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:11.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 11TH DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 724 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Shudesh. J,<br /> S/o Late Joseph,<br /> No.4/1, I Main Road,<br /> Xavier Layout, Viveknagar,<br /> Bangalore-47. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,<br /> Bangalore Telecom District,<br /> Telephone House, Raj Bhavan Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 001,<br /> Represented by its <br /> Principal General Manager.<br /> <br /> 2. Deputy General Manager,<br /> Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., <br /> Telephone Exchange,<br /> Indira Nagar, HAL II Stage,<br /> Bangalore-38. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, requesting that the opposite party be directed to investigate the excess bill issued to the complainant and also to activate the land line connection and to waive the excess bill. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had taken landline telephone connection. He has made regular payments. Complainant is the second son of late Joseph. Complainant had also availed broadband facility for domestic purpose in the year 2006. He received bill for Rs. 12,198/- towards broadband connection. Complainant had cleared the bills towards landline. Complainant gave representation to investigate the excess bill issued and also to activate the landline. Opposite party failed to activate the land line. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, opposite party disconnected the telephone for non payment of bill dated 9/8/2007. Complainant had lodged excess billing complaint. Report was called from the NIB exchange, Ulsoor. Case was presented to the committee. Broadband is calculated at 0.80 per MB which amounts to Rs.10, 296/-. It is false that opposite parties without investigating the excess bill are claiming bills. Department has disconnected the telephone for nonpayment of bills. There is no illegality in disconnecting the telephone. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable on law and facts. Therefore, the opposite parties requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. I have perused the complaint, documents and the defence version. The complainant has produced bill dated 9/8/2007. This is for Rs. 12,198/-. The bill has been issued in the name of Joseph.J. The complainant is not a subscriber under the opposite parties. The complainant has submitted that he is the second son of Joseph.J. The complainant has produced death certificate of his father. As per the death certificate Joseph.J had died on 5/9/2006 long before filing of complaint. The present complaint had been filed on 19/3/2008. After the death of Joseph.J the complainant had not informed to the opposite parties the fact of death of his father. Death was not reported to opposite parties. The records still standing in the name of deceased Joseph. J. The complainant admittedly is not a consumer and he is not a subscriber of the opposite parties. Telephone connection was not taken in the name of complainant. Under these circumstances, the learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed on this point itself. There is considerable force in the said argument because admittedly complainant is not a subscriber. Bill has not been issued to the name of complainant. Therefore, the case cannot be decided in respect of deficiency of service. Etc.,. The complainant admittedly has not paid the bill dated 9/8/2007. Therefore, he cannot ask the opposite parties to activate the landline which was disconnected. The complaint of the complainant was referred for investigation. The Area Manager, BSNL submitted that subscriber is not entitled for any rebate. The complainant already referred the matter to DGM and requested for investigation. On the request of the complainant matter was investigated departmentally and as per the NIB, Port vice usage report, no abnormality was found and no problem was found at the departmental end. Therefore, the complainant cannot complained or seek to investigate the matter. Already matter had been investigated and it was found that there was no problem at the departmental end. Admittedly, the complainant has not cleared the bill dated 9/8/2007. Therefore, the telephone was disconnected by the department. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11TH DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />