The Petitioner’s case is as follows:

 

            The petitioner is the subscriber of Vadanappilly Telephone Exchange and has Telephone No.2602196. The petitioner had paid the telephone bills regularly. The petitioner used this telephone facility in a limited manner. But on 7/3/04 the respondents issued a bill for an amount of Rs.7522/-. The petitioner has not used the telephone for such a big amount. So the petitioner made complaint about this bill. Subsequently on 7/5/04 the respondents issued a bill for an amount of Rs.3243/-. The petitioner has not used the telephone for such an amount and it can be seen through the telephone bills.    The petitioner had the facility to lock the telephone No. but that system was stopped suddenly. It was corrected when the petitioner complained about it.    The respondents disconnected the telephone connection as the bill is not paid. On 26/9/04 the respondents issued a notice stating that they are going to proceed revenue recovery proceedings as the bill amount is not paid. Hence this petition.

 

            2. The averments in the Version filed by respondents are as follows:

The petitioner is a subscriber with Telephone No.2602196 with effect from 16/6/01. They had issued telephone bills for Rs.7722/- and Rs.3313/-. The respondents received complaint regarding excess metering on 23/3/04 for the bill dated 7/3/04and they have replied promptly after detailed verification from Exchange. After this they again received complaints regarding the next excess bill dated 7/5/04 and the respondents replied promptly by the letter dated 14/6/04 and clarified that frequent and long duration calls to mobile Nos.9847313043 and 9895309006 were originated from petitioner’s telephone during these disputed   periods and hence there seems nothing to be pursued in the complaint. Respondents cannot be blamed for registering calls against petitioner’s telephone number. Notice was issued regarding the revenue recovery proceedings upon the failure of payment. To recover the dues they have no other alternative than to initiate revenue recovery. The complainant is devoid of merit and hence dismiss with costs.

 

            3. The points for consideration are :

1) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the impugned bill amount?

2) Other reliefs and costs ?

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 series and Exhibits R1 to R3.

 

            5. Points : The petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No.2602196 in Vadanappilly. The petitioner had paid the bill amounts regularly and Exhibit P3 series produced to show it. On 7/3/04 the respondents issue a bill amount of Rs.7522/- and again on 7/5/04 another bill for an amount of Rs.3243/-. So the petitioner made complaint against the excess call charges. The respondents in their counter stated that the call charges for the disputed period have been verified and the above bills were found to be correct. The disputed bill originated due to frequent and long duration mobile calls to 9847313043 and 9895309006. The petitioner produced the former bill to show the nature of earlier bills. These all bills are moderate bills. But while going through the respondents evidence, it is clear that the petitioner made frequent and continuous calls to mobile phone numbers stated earlier. Call charges for land phone to mobile phone is different. It is seen that the petitioner made frequent and continuous calls to the mobile phone numbers noted above. There is nothing to disbelieve it. So we came into a conclusion that the charges demanded by the respondents are not illegal and the petitioner is liable to pay these charges.

 

            6. In the result the complaint is dismissed.

 

            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced

in the open Forum this the 23rd day of June 2009.