KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.864/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/2/09 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The General Manager, BSNL, Kadappakkada Junction, Kollam-2. 2. The Chief Accounts Officer, : APPELLANTS BSNL, Kollam Telecom District, 3. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, BSNL Sasthamkottah. (By Adv.K.R.Haridas) Vs Ponnamma, Vijayabhavanam, : RESPONDENT Devaswam Board, Near College, Sasthamkottah. (By Adv.Sandeep T.George) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kollam in the file of OP.No.570/03 dated 28/9/04. The opposite parties are the appellants who preferred this appeal. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties and a subscriber. The telephone connection was given to her in 3/2001. She has been paying the bills upto 10/03 except the bill dated 7/8/03. The bill dated 7/8/2003 was for an amount of Rs.6,863/-. The complainant is not bound to pay the bill amount for the reason that she has not used the telephone for issuing such a huge amount of bill. The opposite parties charged Rs.3193.60 as local call charges for three days. But to the non remittance of the bill dated 7/8/03 the opposite parties disconnected the phone connection of the complainant on 30/9/03. Without remitting the bill amount the telephone connection was reconnected on 10/10/2003. The complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Accounts Officer, BSNL, Kollam. But no action is taken. Therefore she filed this complaint before the Telephone Adalath held on 1/12/2003. After the Adalath the General Manager concerned to sent a letter stating that there was a spurt in the meter reading during the month of May 2003. But no relief is granted. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief. 3. The opposite parties have filed the version contenting that a bill was issued on 7/8/2003 for Rs.6836/-.for rent and call charges including the service tax for three months commencing from 1/5/2003 to 31/7/2003. The normal bimonthly bill could not be issued due to the stay order in O.P.No.15016/03. The opposite parties contented that its revealed an observation that the complainant is a user of the regional places of STD calls prior to 1/5/03in addition to her usual calls including STD calls. Moreover the detailed call records for the disputed period shows that some STD calls were made by her during May 2003. The fortnightly meter reading from 1/1/2003 reveals a gradual increase upto the fortnight ending 30/4/2003. In fortnightly periods ending 15/5/2003 and 31/5/2003 the metered calls are high to the order of 2237 and 2772 respectively. These two fortnights are the starting period of the new telephone tariff introduction together with accessing the entire Kerala with 95 code. The calls as per the bills were actually made from the telephone. The telephone provided to the complainant was with STD facility and dynamic locking. If the dynamic locking was properly used increase in calls could have been avoided. The detailed bill of the telephone subscriber usually contains the STD/ISD calls. There are technical limitations to include the local calls also in the detailed call records. If that may noted that calls effected through 95 access code which are recorded as local call with effect from 1/5/03. No fault was occurred to the equipment, metering devices or external plant of the subscriber during the period from 1/5/2003 to 31/7/2003. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The Forum below placed 2 points they are (1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) Reliefs and costs? 5. From the part of the complainant the complaint was cited as witness and examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P4 are also marked. On the part of the opposite parties DW1 is examined as a witness and marked as Ext.D1 to D7. 6. The Forum below rightly answered the points arised from this case and the Forum below found that the complainant was using the telephone in her house during the disputed period. The issuance of the bill is also admitted. It is also noted that the opposite parties are not in a possession of the documents evidencing to prove the number of calls made by the complainant. 7. Heard the appellant and there is no representation for the respondent. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the finding of the Forum below is not in accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that in their version it was contended that prior to the issuance of the disputed bills with respondents expired and there are possibilities for making more calls to the relatives. It is not possible to assess the bill of a telephone subscriber on the basis of the possibilities and probabilities. The appellants are having well equipped computerized system in their exchange and office. Without giving data basis telephone bills and appellant have no right to issue such a impugned bill mentioned in the complaint. As per the evidence adduced by both sides in the Forum below it is clearly revealed that there is deficiency in service from the part of the appellant . The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable. We are not seen any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost to the complainant. This is very reasonable order. We are uphold this order. In the result this appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER PK.
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN | | 
