Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint is as follows:- The complainant is a subscriber of the opposite party and his telephone number is 550039 of Vadasserikkara exchange. The complainant got the connection in the year 2002 February and the complainant had paid all the telephone bills issued by the opposite party. On 7.3.03, the complainant received a bill from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.14,697/-. The complainant paid the said bill amount on 27.3.07 through Federal Bank, Vadasserikkara Branch. All telephone bills prior to the above said bill were only less than Rs.400/-. However, the bill-dated 7.3.03 is abnormal and the complainant alleges that the said bill is a fabricated bill and he had never used the telephone for getting such a bill. On getting the said bill he made a complaint before the Accounts Officer, Thiruvalla. But the opposite parties have not settled his grievances. Hence this complaint praying for an order from this Forum against the opposite party for getting back the excess amount remitted by him along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony sustained by him due to the illegal acts of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties have filed a version with the following contentions:- The bill in question is proper and as per the call details noted in the disputed bill and is genuine and true. As per the call details, all calls were made from the complainant’s telephone connection and it was also made by the complainant. On 15.1.03 a total pulse of 10405 were noted in the DTAX Thiruvalla. On noticing this the opposite parties have informed it to the petitioner on the next day itself who in turn agreed to pay the call charges. It is also stated that, the call was made by the subscriber in connection with his son’s visa purpose and it was an overseas call. The abnormal duration of the call can be due to the reason that the called party has not disconnected the phone after the maturity of the call. The number called is a frequent calling number of the party and the print out of the call details would show that the calls are actual calls made by the complainant. and it is also submitted that no fault was observed for this number during the relevant period and no abnormality in this telephone connection in the exchange equipments. Therefore, the disputed bill is not an excess bill and the bill was issued for the calls originated from the complainant’s telephone as per the meter reading recorded by the electronic exchange at Vadasserikkara and the opposite parties are not liable for any of the reliefs prayed by the complainant and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> (1) Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for<br /> in the complaint?<br /> (3) Reliefs and Costs? <br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. For the opposite parties, no oral or documentary evidence were adduced. But they have cross-examined PW1.<br /> <br /> 6. Point Nos.1, 2 & 3:- The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite party and the telephone bill dated 7.3.03 issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.14,697/- is excess and it was a fabricated one. All previous bills issued by the opposite parties are less than Rs.400/-. The complainant never used his phone for getting the said bill and the complainant submitted a petition before the Accounts Officer of the opposite party stating this facts. But the opposite parties has not settled his grievances so far. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had lost Rs.14,697/- with mental agony. Therefore, he is entitled to get back the excess amount paid by him along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony.<br /> 7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant have filed a proof affidavit and produced three documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the telephone bill dated 7.3.03 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the disputed telephone bill. The amount demanded by the opposite party in the said bill is Rs.15,097/-. Ext.A2 is a statement issued by the opposite party showing the bills issued and payments received for the year April 2002 to March 2003. Ext.A3 is a telephone bill dated 7.5.03 issued by the opposite party. The amount demanded in Ext.A3 is Rs.241/-. In Ext.A1 details of STD/ISD calls during the Ext.A1 bill period is also shown. PW1 was also cross-examined by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 8. Opposite parties’ contention is that the disputed telephone bill, i.e. Ext.A1 is genuine and that bill was issued on the basis of the meter reading seen in the meter at the exchange. They contended that, the complainant makes all these calls from his telephone connection. The particulars of the call details shows that the number to which the calls were made is related to the complainant and are also frequently calling numbers. According to the opposite party, the abnormal duration of that particular call seen in the call details is due to the reason that the called party has not disconnected the call after the maturity of the call. Therefore, the complainant’s complaint regarding the excess bill is not maintainable and they prays for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 9. On a perusal of the evidence of this case and the materials on records shows that a call to 009665294972 from the complainant’s phone recorded a call duration of 35378 seconds with 10405 pulse on 15.1.03 at 21.12 p.m. That means the complainant’s phone was working continuously for more than 9 hours. It is difficult to believe that one can use his telephone for 9 hours continuously. With regard to this call, the opposite parties contention is that the called party has not disconnected the call after the maturity of the call. The opposite party also contended that Vadasserikkara exchange is an electronic exchange there is no chance for held up. From this contention, it can be presumed that there is a chance for held up in the exchanges. It is also difficult to believe that if a call is not disconnected after the maturity of the call the meter would run like this. Even if a call is not disconnected the phone will get automatically disconnected after some time. <br /> <br /> 10. The contentions put forward by the opposite party is not substantiated or supported by any evidence. The opposite party has not made any attempt to discredit the contentions and allegations of the complainant. So it can be presumed that something had happened in the mechanical system of the telephone exchange, which leads to an excessive meter reading. Opposite parties are also admitted that the particular telephone call mentioned above was of abnormal duration. The telephone call for more than 9 hours at a stretch is beyond imagination. In the circumstances, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant and thereby the complainant has brought out a maintainable and allowable complaint. In the circumstances, we find that Ext.A1 telephone bill is not sustainable and hence it is set aside. The complainant has already remitted the bill amount to avoid the disconnection thereby the opposite party has already received an amount of Rs.14,697/-. On a perusal of the complainant’s usual telephone bills, we have no hesitation to say that the opposite parties has collected an excess amount of Rs.14,400/- from the complainant. The opposite parties are not entitled to get that amount. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the said amount with interest, cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> 11. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,400/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Four hundred) to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing this complaint with a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest for the whole amount will follow at 10% per annum till the whole payment.<br /> <br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President).<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix:<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : P.V. Sasi.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Bill dated 7.3.2003 for Rs.14,697/- issued by the 2nd opposite party<br /> to the complainant.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of the Statement of bills issued and payments received<br /> for the year April 2002 to March 2003 issued by the 2nd opposite party<br /> to the complainant.<br /> A3 : Bill dated 7.5.03 for Rs.231/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the<br /> complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil. <br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />