By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a telephone subscriber and regular payee of the telephone bills excluding disputed bills issued. The Complainant received bill No.19534551 dated 05.08.2006 for the payment of Rs.5,154/-. Followed by that an another bill for Rs.2,877/- dated 05.10.2006 was also issued to the Complainant. The Complainant had sent to the SDOT Sulthan Bathery the objection showing that the amount demanded in the bills are not sustainable and not relied on the calls made by the Complainant. The Complainant received notices from the Village Officer to recover the amount attaching the property for the amount. The recovery proceedings initiated against the Complainant is illegal.

1. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 that the Complainant is not liable to pay the amount as demanded in the bills.

2. To issue an order to cancel the recovery proceedings of the Opposite Parties 3 to 4.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the contention in the version are as follows. The complaint and the contentions are not sustainable. The Complainant itself is barred by limitations of time and it is also barred under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The bills as stated issued to the Complainant is based on the reading and meter calls. The allegation of the Complainant that an objection was filed to SDOT is incorrect. The petitioner is liable to remit the amount due to the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The points No.1 and 2 can be considered together. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1, Ext.A1, A2 and X1 are Marked. The Opposite Parties have not tendered any oral evidence. The Complainant's case is that the bills dated 05.8.2006 and 5.10.2006 issued to the Complainant of Rs.5,154/- and 2,877/- respectively are unreasonable and excess. More over the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties are illegal and incorrect.

5. The Opposite Parties have not tendered any oral evidence apart from filing version. The Complainant is also examined as PW1, it is admitted that the bills which are in dispute are only pending. The documents produced by the Complainant shows that the bills dated 05.08.2006 and 05.10.2006 are for the amount in dispute. It also substantiate that amount demanded in the bills are not paid. Nothing contrary is proved to bring forth in evidence that the amount levied upon the complaint is an excess one and no objection as admitted seen filed by the Complainant, when the bills for an exorbitant amount was received. The revenue recovery steps taken against the Complainant is for recovering the amount due from the Complainant. We are in the opinion that the amount demanded from the Complainant is born out from the document. The contention of the Complainant is also as such that the other billspreceding the disputed bills are for lessor amount and no other document is produced by the Complainant to establish the contention. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24^th day of July 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Ammini Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Letter dt:26.2.2007.

A2. Notice. dt:18.8.2008

X1. Bill. dt:05.8.2006.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.