BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu
President.
Sri N.J.Mohan Rao,
Member.
AND
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Wednesday the 28th May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 42/2006
Between:
Mohd.Abbas Ali,
S/o.Ali Saheb,
Age: 42 years,
Occu.: Advocate,
R/o.Station Ghanpur,
Warangal – 506 144.
… Complainant
AND
1. Bharath Sanchar Nigham Limited,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Warangal Telecom District,
Near Kakatiya Medical College,
S.V.P.Road, Warangal.
2. The Accounts Officer (TR-III)
B.S.N.L., O/o.G.M.T.D.,
Near Kakatiya Medical College,
S.V.P.Road, Warangal.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. K.Rajeshwar, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri. M.Sadasivudu, Advocate
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
:: ORDER ::
Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu President
This is a complaint filed by the complainant i.e.Mohd.Abbas Ali against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction (1)To remove the defects and deficiencies in the bills dated 04-12-2004, 04-02-2005 and 04-04-2005 and to re-issue fresh bills after investigation and proper meter reading, (2) To direct for refund of the security deposit of Rs.1,000/-, (3) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and compensation for the defective and deficiency in service by adopting unfair trade practice with gross negligence by the opposite parties, (4) To award costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, (5) To grant such other relief or relieves.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
01. The complainant is an Advocate and resident of Ghanpur (Station) Warangal District having Telephone connection with subscriber No.220531 under Ghanpur Station Telephone Exchange. The complainant used to get by monthly bill for Rs.250/- to Rs.400/- depending upon the complainant’s usage. He used to pay the said bills and the complainant in the month of December, 2004 got a bill dated 04-12-2004 for Rs.975/- for the period of October and November 2004 the said Bill is almost three (3) times of average normal billing, he is adjust same amounts in the bills. On 04-02-2005 received bill for Rs.3,667/-. On 04-04-2005 he received bill for Rs.5,503/- through the telephone was under disconnection with fresh meter reading. The complainant in the month of December, 2004 got bill dated 04-12-2004 for Rs.975/-, so after seeing the bills the complainant made complaint before the opposite party to rectify the bill but the opposite party issued a letter 19-01-2006 to the complainant that requested to pay the due bill amount.
Opposite Party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
02. The opposite party Advocate argued that, the complainant used to get bills ranging from Rs.250/- to Rs.600/- which is admitted by him, as such the questioning of either jumping the bills of excessive does not arise, the complainant being legal practitioner and having his own communications to speak others by availing telephone the question of excess bills does not arise. The complainant alleged that, there is a jumping of meter and excess bills are being recorded, this allegation itself is having no authority or any verification at his own accord with his own skill but it is only an allegation to defraud public exchequer to avoid the payments which he consume with evasive nature. The bill dated 04-04-2005 for Rs.5,503/- was for the only calls made by the complainant during the period from 01-02-2005 to 09-03-2005.
03. The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-11. On behalf of opposite parties Sri M.Sadasivudu filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination.
04. Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for i.e.
- To remove the defects and deficiencies in the bills dated 04-12-2004, 04-02-2005 and 04-04-2005 and to re-issue fresh bills after investigation and proper meter reading.
- To direct for refund of the security deposit of Rs.1,000/-.
- To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and compensation for the defective and deficiency in service by adopting unfair trade practice with gross negligence by the opposite parties.
- To award costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
- To grant such other relief or relieves.
05. After arguments of the both side counsels, we come to the conclusion that, we accept the contention of the opposite parties because the complainant made request to the B.S.N.L. Authorities to rectify the bill, at that time they again verified the bill and sent the same letter stating that pay the amount of Rs.8,873/- it is clearly goes to show that, as per the meter charges only they put the amount of Rs.8,873/- there is no other document from the complainant side to show that the amount fixed by the B.S.N.L. is wrong, since there is no documentary proof from the complainant side, it is clear that on the basis of calls made by the complainant during the period from 01-02-2005 to 01-03-2005 fixed the rate by the B.S.N.L. they clearly mentioned in the Written Version that the bill dated 04-04-2005 for Rs.5,503/- was for the only calls by the complainant during the period from 01-02-2005 to 09-03-2005 which may contained the part of the disconnection period. So as per the contention of the opposite parties itself, it is clear on the basis of only calls made by the complainant the B.S.N.L. charged the amount. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had done his job in a correct manner and there are no defaults from them.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we see no grounds to allow this complaint, hence we answer this point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
POINT No.2 WHAT RELIEF:-
The first point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant, this point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e. 28th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT ON BEHALF OF O.P.
Affidavit of Complainant -- NIL --
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT
- Ex.A-1 is the Original bill for Rs.231/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 08-04-2003.
- Ex.A-2 is the Original bill for Rs.296/- issued by the opposite party, dated 08-04-2003.
- Ex.A-3 is the Original bill for Rs.291/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 04-08-2004.
- Ex.A-4 is the Original bill for Rs.367/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 04-10-2004.
- Ex.A-5 is the Original bill for Rs.975/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 04-12-2004.
- Ex.A-6 is the Original bill for Rs.3,667/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 04-02-2005.
- Ex.A-7 is the Original bill for Rs.5,503/- issued by the opposite parties, dated 04-04-2005.
- Ex.A-8 is the original letter issued by O.P.No.2 to the complainant, dated 19-01-2006.
- Ex.A-9 is the Original office copy of the legal notice got issued to the Oppoiste Party No.1, dated 22-02-2006.
- Ex.A-10 is the Original Postal Receipt No.4412 issued by H.P.O., Hanamkonda, dated 24-02-2006.
- Ex.A-11 is the original Postal Acknowledgement of the above notice, dated 27-02-2006.
ON BEHALF OF Opposite parties
-- NIL --
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
