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.115/2008 Order dated this the 29th day of December 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.C.Chikkanna S/o Chikkaiah @ Buddaiah, Hunnenadoddi, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk. (INPERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The General Manager, B.S.N.L. Kalamandir Road, Mandya (By Sri.K.C.Chowdegowda., Legal Cell) Date of complaint 04.11.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 19.11.2008 Date of order 29.12.2008 Total Period 1 Month & 10 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite party to provide reconnection of the phone facility immediately within a week and further to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.250/-. The Opposite party is directed to deduct Rs.169/- out of the compensation amount towards the rectified bill amount. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite party for reconnection of phone facility and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that they are having phone facility bearing No.235824 in the name of his brother at Hunnenadoddi Village, Maddur Taluk. Earlier the bill was Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per month, as they dont use the phone for most of the time. In spite of it, the bills for Rs.1,000/- and more were coming and for non-payment, it was disconnected. Later when the complainant approached the Opposite party Branch at Bharathinagar, on the assurance of minimum rental bill, he paid the arrears and got re-connection. Again thereafter for few months, the bills for Rs.300/- to Rs.450/- were coming. After 5 6 months, again the bills for Rs.1,000/- to 1,200/- were coming and then phone facility was disconnected. Then on 14.05.2008, the complainant gave a petition to provide only incoming calls under Sulabh Scheme by paying all the arrears. Thereafter, from the month of May the bills at the rate of Rs.1,700/- were coming. Therefore, they could not deposit the amount and thereafter it was disconnected. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by collecting excess bill and the complainant family suffered prestige in the eye of relatives. Hence, he has sought for refund of excess paid amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.40,000/- for illegally disconnection and re-connection. 3. The Opposite party has filed version pleading that the complainant is not a consumer. The GPA produced is not a valid one and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not the member of customers family and the phone facility is not in use of the complainant. The complainant has not exhausted all the channels and he has not given any complaint to the Opposite party authorities. The application for Sulabh facility is given on 14.05.2008, but he never approached the authority for confirmation. With a malafide intention the complaint is filed after receipt of the bill dated 07.08.2008. On the request of the complainant, the bill dated 07.08.2008 is corrected for Rs.169/- and the same is produced with memo. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 4. The complainant has filed affidavit. The Opposite party Officer has also filed affidavit. The complainant has produced the documents which are not disputed. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by issuing excess billing and disconnected in spite of application dated 14.05.2008 under Sulabh Scheme? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The Opposite party has opposed the compliant, stating that the complainant is not a consumer and he cannot file a complaint and power of attorney produced is not a valid one. It is a specific case of the complainant that phone facility is in the name of his brother in their house and it is installed for the purpose of talking with the parents by his brother. There is no dispute that complainant is the brother of the consumer. There is no evidence that the consumer is residing in the same village and using this phone facility as he is a lecturer. Further, the complainant has produced the power of attorney and the receipts and bills issued by the Opposite party. Since, the complainant as the member of the family, is in possession of the documents and has produced. In fact, he has obtained the power of attorney and it is made before the Notary. Even though, the stamp paper used is less than the amount prescribed under law, but it can be taken as a authority letter and complainant is the agent of the consumer and he is also beneficiary and hence we hold the complaint is maintainable and complainant is a consumer. 9. The grievance of the complainant is that earlier the phone bill was Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- as they were using the phone at lesser time. In spite of it, the bills for Rs.1,000/- were coming and for non-payment of bill, phone facility was disconnected. When the complainant approached the telephone exchange at Bharathi Nagar, they assured that the proper bills will be sent within the rental value and to deposit the arrears. Therefore, they deposited the amount with fine and obtained the facility. Thereafter for some months bills were coming Rs.300/- to 450/- and after 5 6 months again the bills for Rs.1,000/- and more were coming and thereafter it was disconnected. The complainant has produced the phone bill for the period 01.12.2006 to 31.01.2007 and the bill is for Rs.395/-, but the bill from 01.02.2007 to 31.03.2007 is Rs.1,217/-. So, it cannot be acceptable how in the next bill suddenly the bill at 3 times has been increased, though the phone facility is in the village. Again in the bill dated 07.08.2008 for the period 01.06.2008 to 31.07.2008 the bill amount is Rs.1,668/- So this abnormal bills, the complainant has not deposited and Opposite party has disconnected the phone and his oral requests have not yielded any result. Admittedly, on 14.05.2008, the complainant has opted for Sulabh Scheme by giving application and also deposited the arrears of Rs.1,263/-. In spite of it, the Opposite party has sent the bill dated 07.08.2008 for Rs.1,600/-, it cannot be understood how for one way i.e, incoming calls, the bill up to Rs.1,668/- comes. The Opposite party has admitted that the bill dated 07.08.2008 is not wrong and they have rectified and the payable amount is Rs.169/-. So, it appears that in August 2008, the phone connection was disconnected by the Opposite party. There is no explanation as to why the bill from May 2008 were issued for more than Rs.1,000/-, though the complainant opted for Sulabh Scheme for incoming calls only and naturally only the bill for rental value should be sent. The Opposite party has not at all taken any steps, in spite of the application dated 14.05.2008, but negligently went on issuing excess bill for Rs.1,700/-. Therefore, there is clearly negligence on the part of the Opposite party by not discharging the duty properly and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 10. The complainant has sought for refund of excess amount deposited as Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.40,000/- for illegally disconnection. The contention of the Opposite party is that, the complainant has not approached the Opposite party first by giving application but directly approached the Consumer Forum and therefore he is not entitled to relief. But when admittedly the complainant has given an application on 14.05.2008 under Sulabh Scheme and in spite of it, if the Opposite party continues to send the phone bills as earlier for Rsd.1,700/- etc., then there is no point in saying that the complainant should approach the Opposite party first to inform the negligence of the Opposite party Office. 11. The complainant has not produced the documents as to prove how much excess amount has been deposited by the complainant. It is well proved that due to excess billing negligence there was disconnections for non-payment and the complainant and family suffered a lot and therefore it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- apart from providing immediate phone connection. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite party to provide reconnection of the phone facility immediately within a week and further to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.250/-. The Opposite party is directed to deduct Rs.169/- out of the compensation amount towards the rectified bill amount. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of December 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
