, KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FA.660/05
JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.09
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Rep by its General Manager,
Telecom, Puliken’s Complex,
Kottayam.
2. The Accounts Officer, -- APPELLANTS
BSNL. Puliken’s Complex,
Kottayam.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Public Grievance Cell, BSNL
Near PMG Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.
( By Adv.Mathew K.Philip)
Vs.
K.A.Mohammed Salee,.
Thekkumthottam, Erumeli P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Kottayam.
(by Adv.Anwar Hussian)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party in OP.333/03 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bill issued by the appellant for telephone charges stands cancelled. The complainant has been directed to pay only Rs.2204/- the amount of the provisional bill. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.750/- to the petitioner towards costs.
2. The case of the complainant is that he has been served with a bill for Rs.7093/- dated 7.4.02 whereas normally his bills used to be below Rs.1000/-. According to him on his complaint the reduced bill was issued for Rs.2204/-. According to him the sudden spurt is on account of some mistake in the metering devise. He has sought for canceling the demand for Rs.7093/-.
3. The opposite party has contended that the contention that the bill for Rs.2204/- is a reduced bill is in correct. It was only a provisional bill on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner. The matter was investigated and it was found that the complainant has used the telephone and the charges levied are as per the correct recording.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Ext.A1 to A 16 and B1 to B4.
5. We find that the Forum has clearly held that the reason for the spurt which could not be furnished. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the provisional bill for Rs.2204/- is not the reduced bill but only the instalment amount directed to be remitted on the application of the complainant. Hence we find that the direction of the Forum to pay the provisional bill for Rs.2204/- as the final amount to be remitted is not correct. All the same, it is established that there was a spurt. There is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum with respect to the finding that there was a spurt.
6. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The opposite party/appellant is directed to issue a fresh bill taking the previous average for 3 months and also including 10% of the disputed bill. The complainant will liable to pay the above amount. The appellant will not include any surcharge or penalty in the bill calculated as mentioned above.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
