By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is a subscriber of BSNL who owns a Telephone No.2765908. The petitioner got a bill on 7/6/06 from the BSNL for the period from1/4/06 to 31/5/06 demanding to remit Rs.6722/-. The local calls mentioned in the bill was 5085 Nos. and after debiting the approved 150 free calls and the balance 4935 calls were charged as Rs.6722/-. The petitioner did not make such calls and intimated the matter to the respondents. But no response from the respondents. The petitioner received another bill on 7/8/06 for Rs.3932/-for the period from 1/6/06 to 31/7/06. The petitioner wanted to verify the list of calls but not furnished. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> The counter is as follows:<br /> 2. The complainant subscribed the telephone w.e.f. 2/8/05. The dispute is with respect to the bill amount in bills dated 7/6/06 for Rs.6722/- and 7/8/06 for Rs.3932/-. Complaint to the bills if any has to be made within one month of the date of bills. Instructions to this effect is written on the reverse of every monthly bills. The petitioner has made the request after 47 days. If she had made the complaint in time the telephone could have been put under observation to find out frequently called numbers. The allegation in para 2 is not correct. The phone could have been used for services of ISD/STD/Mobile calls, long distance calls within Kerala Circle (starting with 95) value added services like number starting 12555 with 30 seconds pulse. Many subscribers use this service which entertains with music, cricket jokes etc. and a single attempt to this number results in several metered units. If the subscriber had made the request within 30 days or at least before disconnection the telephone could have been put under observation to find out the calling pattern. So there is no merit in stating that the complainant had not called the quantity of calls in the bills. It is also noted that the metered calls from April 2006 in respect of the said telephone is seen steadily increased. The determination of the amounts in the bills are basically and ultimately on meticulously managed accounting system and no fresh determination is needed.<br /> <br /> 3. Points for consideration are<br /> 1) Is there any deficiency in service ?<br /> 2) If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2 only. No other evidence.<br /> 5. Points : Exhibits P1 and P2 are the disputed bills and the only dispute is with regard to the bill amounts of Rs.6722/- and Rs.3932/-. The bills are dated 7/6/06 and 7/8/06. When she received the Exhibit P1 bill she intimated the matter to the respondent and there was no response from the respondents. According to the petitioner she has not used the phone for such a heavy amount. She had made a complaint on 25/7/06 for verification of the calls. But the respondents were not acted upon the complaint by stating that the bill complaints if any is to be preferred within one month of the date of bill. Instructions to this effect is available on the reverse of every bimonthly bill. On the reverse side of Exhibit P1 and P2 there is such a condition and the bill complaints need to be made within 30 days of bill. This was not done by the complainant. She had made the complaint after 47 days and as per the condition of BSNL, this complaint cannot be considered Again Exhibit P2 is issued for Rs.3932/- and this amount is also disputed by the complainant. When this amount came, respondent can very well verify the calls and details because a complaint was pending already on 25/7/06 just earlier than the Exhibit P2 bill. This was not done. The petitioner has no complaint regarding the earlier bills. So the respondents had to verify the details because of the existing complaint of petitioner on 25/7/06. This is a mistake and deficiency in the part of respondents. Their defence is that if the complaint had been preferred in time the telephone could have been put under observation to find out frequently called numbers. In these days of computer revolution this view of the respondents is not acceptable. The details will be in the custody of respondents and they can furnish it to the petitioner. Moreover in the counter they have stated that the bill dated 7/8/06 was the actual usage of the instrument upto 13/7/06. But as per Exhibit P2 the fixed charges were imposed for a period from 1/6/06 to 31/7/06. From this it can be seen that amount has received for non usage and this amounts to deficiency in service. So the verification of details is highly necessary. The service deficiency of respondents is proved. The only relief sought by the complainant is verification of the call register and permission to pay the bill.<br /> In the result the complaint is allowed as prayed. Comply the order within two weeks. <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of September 2008.<br />