By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner was a subscriber of the respondents from January 2004 with Telephone No.0487 3091498 and opted for the highest tariff plan of Rs.1,500/- for availing all the benefits and services offered by the respondents. Petitioner took the phone connection mainly to use STD facility, as the rates offered by the respondents were lesser to BSNL charges. As and when petitioner received bills from the respondent the same was remitted before due dates. But without prior information and for no reason the respondents disconnected the STD facility stating ‘pending dues’, which is an unfair trade practice. Even though in some occasions STD facility was given, again the respondents disconnected the STD facility from 1/6/04 stating ‘high usage’. A letter was given on 15/6/04 intimating the matter but there was no response. As the respondents did not provide all the facilities in “Plan 1500” the petitioner again sent a letter on 30/6/04 requesting to change the tariff to “Plan 500”. But in the subsequent bill again the respondents charged Rs.1,500/- as plan charges. Due to the above act the petitioner cannot avail the facilities offered. So the petitioner issued termination letter on 1/9/04. In spite of receiving the termination letter the respondents issued bill for Rs.500/- as plan charges for the period from 16/9/04 to 15/10/04. As there was no STD facility available, the petitioner had to use the Telephone for Internet access alone. In bill dated 16/8/04 the respondents charged Rs.1,809.10 as data charges, which is very high, compared to other Internet services. As there was no STD facility the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.1,568/- as unutilized plan charges and an excess amount of Rs.2,220/- difference of charges by using BSNL phones and a loss of Rs.3,609/- by using Internet, totalling an amount of ‘Rs.7,948.40. The petitioner received a demand notice dated 11/12/04 and 13/12/04 as usage charges for which he is not liable. A reply was sent. Petitioner is eligible for excess amount paid and compensation. Hence the petition. The apparatus supplied to the petitioner was given back to the respondent.<br /> <br /> 2.The averments in the counter are as follows: The STD facility provided was barred due to the excess usage. The credit limit fixed was up to Rs.1,000/-. If the subscriber crosses the limit the facility will be barred under the policy of value based barring. This was done in this case also. The STD facility of the petitioner was barred due to excess usage. The complainant had submitted plan migration form only on 17/7/04. The migration was affected from the next billing cycle onwards, even though, the petitioner had sent a letter of termination of service on 1/9/04. He had not surrendered the instrument. Later surrendered on 3/1/2005. At the time of termination of service there was a due of Rs.5,407.20 to the respondents. There is no deficiency of service. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are :<br /> 1)Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded in notices dated 11/12/04 and 13/12/04 ?<br /> 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.7,948.40 as prayed ?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P22 and Exhibit R1.<br /> <br /> 5.Point No.1 : According to the petitioner he was totally dissatisfied with the respondent’s telephone system. So he sent a letter on 1/9/04 to terminate the telephone connection. In spite of the termination request, respondent sent the bills for further one and half months. So the petitioner is not liable to pay the bills beyond the date of termination. Exhibit P1 is the request made by the petitioner to the respondent for terminating the service. In spite of receiving it the respondents used to issue bills. This is an unfair trade practice. The contention put forward by the respondents is that it is based on their billing cycle. Whatever may be their internal affairs, they are not expected to issue bills from the date of request for termination . The customer cannot be penalized to pay the bills beyond the date of termination. The petitioner need not pay the charges from the date of termination letter. It is the duty of the respondent to settle the matter when the letter is put for terminating the service. The respondents plea that they were waiting for the billing cycle cannot be accepted, as the same was not informed to the petitioner earlier. The bill issued after the letter is unfair and the petitioner need not pay for it. This point is found in favour of the petitioner.<br /> <br /> 6.Point No.2 : The second point to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.7,948.40. The petitioner alleged that since the respondent failed to provide the STD facility, the petitioner had lost Rs.1,568/- as unutilized plan charges. Likewise he also stated that he had lost the offered gain to an extent of Rs.2,200/-. By using internet he had lost Rs.3,609/-. But there is no evidence to show specifically that he had lost such an amount in various needs. So he is not entitled to get the amount he sought.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result the petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is found to be not liable to pay the amount contained in notices dated 11/12/04 and 13/12/04 and respondents are directed not to realize the amounts in those notices. Petitioner is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 19th day of June 2008.<br /> <br />