O R D E R<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)<br /> <br /> The complainant Anil Kumar. R., @ Anil Kottarathil, has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint are the following:- The complainant is a practicing lawyer who had applied for getting a telephone connection from the opposite parties and 2nd opposite party informed the complainant about the allotment of the telephone connection and also informed that the number will be 333890 and the number was entered their ledger. At the time of installing the telephone at the complainant’s house, the complainant came to know that they have given another telephone number i.e, 333860 instead of the allotted number. Before getting the connection, the complainant has given the earlier number to his clients, relatives and friends and they are tried to contact the complainant in that number for certain urgent purposes but it had failed due to the change in number. After getting the telephone connection, the complainant had received many calls enquiring one Thankappan Achary and had to hear ugly dialogues. On enquiry complainant came to know that the existing telephone number was of one Thankappan Achary and by giving another persons telephone number, the opposite parties cheated the complainant and all these caused financial loss, mental pain and other inconveniences to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. Later the complainant had received telephone bills for different amounts and as per bill No.41739303 dated 11.6.02, the opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs.7,635/- as telephone charges. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite parties charged huge amount. According to the complainant, the said changes are pertaining to the previous subscriber of the said telephone. So he did not paid the telephone bills. Consequent to the non-payment of the bills` the opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s telephone connection without giving notice and have initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against him. This illegal act of the opposite parties is deficiency of service, which also caused mental agony and other inconvenience to him. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and for restoring the disconnected telephone connection of the complainant and for the cancellation of telephone bills issued by the opposite parties. The complainant prays for granting a relief.<br /> <br /> 4. The Accounts Officer (TR) of the opposite parties has filed version on behalf of all the opposite parties. The opposite parties admitted that they have given a telephone connection with Tel.No.333860 to the complainant on 10.3.01 and was disconnected for the non-payment of bills dated 11.6.01, 11.8.01 and 11.10.01. The opposite parties have served notices to the complainant urging settlement of outstanding dues to avoid R.R proceedings against him. But he did not approach any officials for the settlement of dues. They further contented that as per the departmental rules the prospective subscribers have an option to choose the number on payment of prescribed fee when bulk release of connections. As per their records, there is no bulk release of connection in Kumbazha Exchange when the priority of the complainant becomes due. The procedure for allotment of telephone number in the normal course is to allot the spare numbers, which are on surrender/disconnection of existing number for various reasons available in the exchange to prospective subscribers. Hence, in this case choice for a particular number is does not arise. Besides, telephone No.KBZ 2333890 was working w.e.f 8.8.1996 in the name of one Chandramathy Vijayakumar.<br /> <br /> 5. The allegations regarding the excess bill, the opposite parties contention is that the bills are payable within the pay-by-date, failing which telephone is liable to be disconnected. Since the complainant failed to pay 3 consecutive bills amounting to a total of Rs.5,351/-, the number was permanently closed for non-payment in December 2002. The complainant has no right to get restored the disconnected phone even if he pays all dues. The complainant’s allegations are not sustainable and all are fabricated for escaping from the payment of telephone bills, which owes to BSNL. Opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of complaint.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration in this complaint are the following:-<br /> <br /> (1)Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as sought for in<br /> the complaint?<br /> <br /> (3)Relief & Costs?<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by him. Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. For opposite parties, no oral or documentary evidence were adduced. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and the dispute between the complainant and opposite parties is a consumer dispute and is within the jurisdiction of the Forum. Hence the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.<br /> <br /> 9. Points 2 & 3:- In order to prove complainant’s case, complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1. PW1 stated that he had applied for getting a telephone connection from opposite parties. At the time of informing the allotment of the connection, they have allotted him Tel.No.333890 and at the time of installing the telephone, the number has been changed to 333860. The earlier informed number was given to all his clients and relatives by the complainant and they have tried to contact him for some urgent purposes but failed due to the change of number, which caused financial loss and other inconvenience to him. Further, PW1 stated that the opposite parties cheated him by giving another persons telephone number to him and the opposite parties have issued telephone bills of the prior subscriber. The bill issued on 11.8.02 for Rs.241/- produced by the PW1 is marked as Ext.A1. Demand notice for the payment of Rs.6,671 dated 23.5.03 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant produced is marked as Ext.A2. Both bills were not remitted him. Another bill issued on 11.6.02 for Rs.231/-, produced by PW1 is marked as Ext.A3. PW1 filed this complaint for getting compensation for his mental agony, financial loss etc. caused due to the denial of the earlier allotted number and for restoring his disconnected telephone connection and for the cancellation of telephone bills issued by the opposite parties. PW1 prays for granting the relief.<br /> <br /> 10. PW1 has been cross-examined by the representative of opposite parties. At the time of cross-examination, the legal notice dated 9.9.02 issued by the opposite parties regarding the R.R proceedings against PW1 produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A4. PW1 admitted that, at the time of exchange expansion the change of numbers, old and new, are published in the dailies.<br /> <br /> 11. Coming to the documents marked from the side of the complainant, Ext.A1 is the bill-dated 11.8.02 for Rs.231/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the demand notice dated 23.5.03 for the payment of Rs.6,671/- from opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the bill-dated 11.6.02 for Rs.231/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the Legal Notice/Revenue Recovery regarding the telephone bills claim in respect of Tel.No.333860 disconnected along with statement of accounts issued by the opposite parties on 9.9.02. In Ext.B1, opposite parties demanded for the payment of dues on or before 25.9.02. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 12. With regard to the complainant’s case, the complainant had availed a telephone connection from opposite parties and was disconnected for the non-payment of <br /> <br /> the telephone bills. The complainant paid first telephone bill and defaulted the other bills. The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties that they had allotted one number and that number had been changed at the time of installing the telephone. The earlier allotted number was given to his clients and relatives and because of change of number he had sustained mental agony and financial loss. According to the opposite parties as per departmental rules, the prospective subscribers have an option to choose the number on payment of prescribed fee during bulk release of connections. There is no record for such payment of prescribed fee by the complainant and as per their official records there is no bulk release of connection effected in Kumbazha exchange at that time. More over as the complainant stated firstly number, i.e. 2333890 already working in the name of Chandramathi Vijayakumar and allotment of that number is not correct.<br /> <br /> 13. Another allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is regarding the excess telephone bill. The opposite parties contention is that the opening reading of Tel.No.333860 was zero and it can be seen from the first bill issued to the subscriber on 11.4.01 and the petitioner’s allegation that this number was provided to some other person is not correct. For considering the complainant’s prayer for restoring the disconnected telephone connection, the complainant’s telephone connection was disconnected for the non-payment of the bills. As per the departmental rules of opposite parties, any phone kept disconnected for 6 months for non-payment of dues is liable to be closed on permanent basis and the ex-subscriber has no right to restore the original number.<br /> <br /> 14. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not even made any written complaint before the opposite parties for getting any reliefs for his grievances. This complaint is filed only after the disconnection of the telephone connection and after the initiation of the R.R. proceedings. The allegations against the opposite parties are not proved. Evidence brought before us are not sufficient to find any deficiency of service against the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is not allowable. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 15. In the result, this O.P. is dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> C. Lathika Bhai<br /> (Member)<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Anil Kumar @ Adv. Anil Kottarathil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Bill dated 11.8.02 for Rs.241/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant.<br /> A2 : Notice dated 23.5.03 issued by the opposite party to the complainant<br /> A3 : Bill dated 11.6.02 for Rs.241/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant<br /> A4 : Notice dated 9.9.02 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.