DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of October, 2006<br /> <br /> Present: Shri.Roy Kurian, President<br /> Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member <br /> <br /> C.C.No.27/2006<br /> Joy Daniel,<br /> S/o.E.V.Daniel, <br /> Mangalath House, Pallikad,<br /> Paruvasserry (P.O),<br /> Palakkad – 678 686 - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.The General Manager,<br /> Telecom District, BSNL,<br /> Palakkad.<br /> <br /> 2.The S.D.O.T, <br /> B.S.N.L, Alathur.<br /> <br /> 3.The Junior Telecom Officer,<br /> B.S.N.L,<br /> Vadakkencherry. - Opposite parties <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that the telephone bearing No.04922 204374 in the name of complainant's father issued by the opposite party Tarang handset the bill issued for the month of December 2005 was for Rs.5,131/-. The complainant submits that usually his telephone bill never used to exceeds above Rs.700/-. He filed an application for detailed bill for the said period. The detailed bill issued by the billing centre dtd.7.1.2006 is prima facie wrong <br /> : 2 :<br /> and is not tenable. When he approached the opposite parties they demanded to pay the bill. Complainant alleges that in the detailed bill issued two calls were seen recorded in one second and not only that certain numbers are seen repeatedly recorded. It is seen that on certain particular days same number has been repeated more than 30 times. In some other numbers there were 300 calls recorded within a period of 3 days. He contented that the detailed bill issued is prima facie wrong and it appears to be the mistake of either computer or the handset. Hence he has approached the forum seeking a prayer to issue the correct bill and to reconnect his phone connections along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony suffered and costs of the litigation.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite parties for their appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. Complainant herein is not the consumer of telephone 204374 because telephone was allotted to his father, Sri.E.V.Daniel. The complainant has not established that he is the legal heir to this telephone. The allegation that detailed bill given by the billing centre for bill dtd.7.1.06 is prima facie wrong, is not tenable. Since instrument is a portable handset, usage may be either by the complainant or by others with his knowledge. Since it is WLL phone, no outsiders can have access to complainant's line. Since the complainant was reported to the cable T.V. Operator, same telephone might have been dialed number of times continuously at regular intervals on the same day. In case of any presumed system problem, telephone bill for subsequent month i.e. January 2006 also should have been on the higher side. Bill amount for January 2006 is Rs.998/- which proves that bills are issued only for actual usage of calls. This is an allegation on excess billing. As per clause 7 B of India Telegraph Act, 1885 billing disputes are <br /> : 3 :<br /> referred to Arbitration. It was contented that the complaint is filed without any merits and it has to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits. Ext.A1 series and B1 series were marked as exhibits from both sides. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.<br /> <br /> We have perused the documents produced from both sides. Ext.B1 is the detailed call records of 0492204374 during December 2005. According to Ext.B1 we are not in a position to decide whether the allegation stated in the complaint are true or not. In the above circumstances the matter has been referred as per clause 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, since this is an allegation on excess billing disputes, are to be referred to Arbitration. <br /> <br /> Hence the complaint is referred to Arbitration for proper disposal as per clause 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2006 <br /> <br /> President (Sd) <br /> <br /> Member (Sd) <br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 (Series) – Copy of telephone bill, letter etc.<br /> : 4 :<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 - Detailed call records of 0492204374 during December 2005