ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in billing extra amount in respect of the calls not made by the complainant and for refund of the amount paid i.e., Rs.1,68,987/- along with interest and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant being the Manager of Hitachi Koki India Pvt. Ltd., has filed this complaint contending that they are using PRI Telephone bearing No.080-40893222 and their account number with OP is 15427383. They are also having ISD facility.  During the month of May 2016, their ISD facilities were deactivated. Every now and then by OP alleging that complainants are making calls to various countries which are in the suspected countries list and their usage was very high. Correspondences were made in that respect.  

3.      Complainant further contended that there is possibility of hacking EPBX device and requested maintenance company M/s Vantage System INC., who conducted inspection and reported that there is no possibility of hacking the EBPX and it could be case of traffic pumping from OP company. Hence they lodged a complaint to the police at Peenya.  OP has issued a bill for Rs.2,21,169.72 ps., which included a bill of OPs Rs.1,77,727/- towards the ISD call charges. Whereas, they have made only few ISD calls to countries like Japan and Malaysia where they have business which is about Rs.1,740/-.  The rest of the claim made by OP is false, wrong and there is no basis for the same.  However in order to have the telephone connection, they made the payment under protest and not to get their business in convenienced.  Billing of excess amount amounts to deficiency in service and hence prayed for dismiss of the complaint.

4.      After notice, OP appeared before the commission through its advocate filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint.

5.      It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable as it is filed by an individual and there is no nexus between the complainant and the OP.  The telephone stands in the name of M/s Hitachi Koki India Ltd. Further as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the dispute between the customer and the telephone company in respect of billing has to be referred to arbitration. Hence this commission has no authority to decide this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.      It is further contended that after the complainant disputed the bill raised for the period 02.05.2016 to 01.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,21,555/- including ISD call charges of Rs.1,70,757/-, they examined the entire issues and the call details and found that the bills were issued as per the actual usage.  Complainant has made ISD calls extensively more particularly to UK, USA, Brundi, East Africa between 03.05.2016 to 25.05.2016 and the calls were routed through subscribers ERI and the correctness of the bill was also apprised to the complainant. The complainant is duty bound to pay the charges for having used the telephone services.  Since the bills are generated through computer system there is no scope for manual interference. Denying all the allegations made in the complaint, further contended that there is no deficiency or negligence on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :           In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

9.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant is a subscriber and has been using the telephone services from the OP.  It is also not in dispute that the OP has raised the bill for Rs.2,21,555/- and the complainant has also paid the said amount.  After paying the said amount has filed this complaint before this Commission.

        10.   OP has taken up the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC had held that disputing of the complaint cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission as the same has to be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed as per section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

        11.   In this connection, it has relied on the decisions in the Revision Petition No.398/2011 by NCDRC, wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has relied on the reported decisions (2009)8 SCC 481 and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and dispute between the parties to be resolved through arbitration only in respect of the dispute of billing.  This has been again reaffirmed in Revision Petition 1703/2010 by the NCDRC.  

        12.   In view of this, since this complaint is also in respect of the bill raised by the OP, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

        13.   Further, the complainant has not produced any authorization to file this complaint such as Power of Attorney or the boards authorization letter, authorizing the complainant to file this complaint on behalf of the company.  There is nothing on record to show that he is authorized to file this complaint and further even on merits also, there is no evidence to show that, EPBX or complainant has been pumped with calls by OP.  The call details clearly goes to show that complainant has made that much of call.  No evidence to show otherwise of the facts.

        14.   In view of the above, this complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in view of the above decisions and hence we pass the following;

ORDER

       Complaint is not maintainable hence the complaint is dismissed.

Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 18^th day of December 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT