IN THE COURT OF PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALFORUM,BARPETA, ASSAM.
CPA CASE No. 02 of 2011
Present:- Smti. C. R. Goswami, A.J.S.,
President,
District Consumer Forum, Barpeta
Sri Gunindra Nath Das :: Complainant
Versus
Sub-Divisional Officer (T) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Barpeta
- Junior Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Barpeta
- Accounts Officer (Te.)Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bongaigaon :: Opposite Parties
APPEARANCE
For the complainant : Mr. G. Das, learned Advocate
For the opposite parties : Mr. D.K.Patowari, learned Advocate
Argument heard on : 08-02-2018
Judgment delivered on : 16-02-2018
J U D G M E N T
1. The complainant has stated in the petition that he is a consumer under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Hearin-after referred to BSNL). That BSNL authority provided a telephone connection bearing No.03665252210 and being customer I/D No.3002010164 and the complainant is enjoying the same since long past. The complainant is an Indane Gas Distributor and the said connection is used in the said distributor office. The complainant used the said connection most limitedly as he used his mobile phone connection as his mobile connection is always with him. For the limited use of the said land line connection no bill exceeding Rs.700/- was received by the complainant previously. It is a matter of great shock and surprise that opposite party No.3 sent a bill in billing account No.8002010854 dated 06-06-2010 for a period from 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 for an amount of Rs.47,591/- which is quite abnormal and highly excessive as the complainant never used the said connection to that extent. On receipt of the said bill the complainant lodged a verbal complainant before the opposite party No.2 requesting him to cause an inquiry into the matter and to arrange to issue a correct bill to the complainant. But instead of causing any inquiry the opposite party No.3 sent a bill being No.19113341 dated 06-08-2010 for an amount of Rs.1,35,814/- towards rupees 47,591 as arrear and Rs.88,222.86 as consumption service for a period from 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 which is also quite abnormal and highly excessive. On receipt of the said bill, the complainant again lodged a verbal complainant before the opposite party No.2 requesting him to send a correct bill enabling him to pay the same. But the opposite Party No.2 did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter the complainant filed a written application dated 06-09-2010 before the opposite party No.2 requesting him to make an inquiry into the matter and to issue a correct bill but in vain. By not causing any inquiry into the matter and by not sending the correct bill the opposite party has caused deficiency of service for which the complainant is suffering immensely. Therefore the complainant has prayed to pass an order-
(a) Declaring the bill dated 06-06-2010 and 06-08-2008 as abnormal and highly excessive.
(b) Directing the opposite parties to inquire into the matter and to prepare a correct bill.
(c) An order to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and the cost of the proceeding.
2. The opposite parties have contested the case by submitting written statement stating inter alia that there is no cause of action, the complaint is false, baseless and misleading. They have stated that the call unit and amount depend on how the complainant used the broadband and telephone. The broadband usages report for the period 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 has checked and found genuine and not excessive. As per usage by the subscriber the bill is computerized and generated on the basis of actual usages made by the complainant and no deficiency of service. The broadband usages and call detailed report for the period of 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 is enclosed with the written statement. The opposite parties have not found any verbal complaint lodged by the complainant. The bill are not prepared with a view to wrongful gain to one part and wrongful loss to another. Bill are prepared as per meter reading of the computerized digital electronic exchange during the period which include all calls used by the subscriber and calculated as per tariff of the department. There is no question of preparing bills wrongfully. No irregularity is done by the opposite parties in preparing the bills and the bill in question is genuine and not excessive at all. The opposite parties have denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition.
3. Upon pleadings the following issues are framed -
(1) Whether there is any cause of action for this complaint?
(2) Whether the complaint is false, baseless and misleading?
(3) Whether the bill amount is excessive?
(4) Whether is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(5) Whether the bill in question is genuine?
(6) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
4. In course of hearing the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and the opposite parties have examined the Sub-Divisional Engineer as DW1.
5. Issue No. 1 :-
The pleadings of the parties have disclosed that according to the complainant the bill dated 06-06-2010 for the period of 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 and the bill dated 06-08-2010 for the period of 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 are abnormal and highly excessive. Prior to that the bill of the complainant never exceeded to Rs.700/- Hence the bill is incorrect and the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service.
The opposite parties have denied the same. According to the opposite parties the bill is computerized and generated on the basis of actual usage made by the complainant. It depends upon the call unit and also depends on the use of the broadband and telephone. The bill in question is genuine and not excessive. It is prepared on the basis of usage of broadband and telephone. There is no deficiency of service.
Hence it is clear that to settle the dispute between the parties, a Judicial decision is required. Hence there is a cause of action for this complaint.
So this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.
6. The other issues i.e. issue No.2,3,4 and 5 are inter related to each other and so these four issues are discussed and decided jointly.
A. According to the complaint petition generally his telephone bill not exceeded Rs.700/-. But the bill dated 06-06-2010 for the period of 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 is for an amount of Rs.47,591/- and the bill dated 06-08-2010 for the period of 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 is for Rs.88,222.86. Both the bills are quite abnormal and highly excessive. The complainant lodged a verbal complaint before the opposite party No.2 requesting him to issue current bill after making an inquiry into the matter enabling him to pay the same. But the opposite party No. 2 did not pay heed to it.
In his cross examination he has stated that his land line phone connection was taken in the year 1983 in the name of Lakshmi Indane Distributor. The number of that telephone Number is 03665/252210. He had a separate telephone line in his residence bearing No.0366525232. The residential telephone line had been withdrawn by him. His present telephone line has broad band connection which is with his telephone No. 03665/252210. At the time of serving excessive bill amount he was local MLA of Barpeta. He does not remember to what extent of Mega-watt he used in broad bond during that time. He does not know the plan of broad bond.
DW1 Sri Parameswar Basumatary has deposed that the complainant is a broad bond user along with local land line user which was connected on 01-09-2008 under plan BBH 250 with the said telephone number 252210 provided to him. The complainant has one Mac address against broad band connection bearing No.00:od:88:45:7f:09 of the computer. Thus it is confirmed that the complainant had every connection through network system which is controlled by single computer and all periodical bill assessment coming out through one computer as against particular Mac address. The complainant within the period 01-05-2010 t0 01-06-2010 raised 227 units as per existing computer reading where from 75 units during this period are deducted as free units. The charge of each unit is Rs.1.20 and by this connection he had to pay a particular amount of Rs.182.40 (1.20+152 units) plus rent of Rs.120/-. Thus he has to pay as a land line user a total sum of Rs.302.40 during the present bill period. As per existing computer reading the complainant used total 73742336 K.B. Out of which 1048576 K.B. Deducted as free units and thus a total serviceable unit of 72693760 K.B. used during 01-05-2010 to 31-05-2010. Calculating in M.B., 1 M.B. consists of 1024 K.B. and in this way 72693760 K.B. forms 70990 M.B. which result comes out by dividing 72693760 K.B. by 1024 K.B. 1 M.B. charges 0.6 paise.
Thus total charge of 70990 M.B. is Rs.42,594/- plus rent Rs.250/- and hence grand total as broad band user is Rs.42,844/-. In this way during the period 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 both as land line user and broad band user of total sum payable is calculated is as follows:-
Total amount as L.L. User Rs. 302.40
Total amount as B.B. User Rs. 42,844.00
Plus as Tax Rs. 4,444.17
Grand Total Rs. 47,590.57
i.e. - 47,591.00
During the period from 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 in two months as land line user the complainant used total 275 units as per computer meter reading out of which 192 units are deducted as free unit. Thus he used total units in two months is 83 units. So he had to pay a total sum of Rs.340/- as land line user. In the same way as broad band user he used 137169750 K.B. During these two months period. After calculating the gross amount of the bill comes Rs.80,373.27 out of which Rs.1,228.81 is deducted as free unit. Thus the net payable amount of the subscriber becomes Rs.79,144.46 plus rent of Rs.500/- in two months and tax in two months Rs.8,238.40. After final calculation the total payable amount is Rs.88,222.86 only. The bill in question was prepared through sophisticated computerised and generated on the basis of actual usage made by the complainant and therefore, no deficiency of service, no irregularity is done by the opposite party in preparing the bill and it is not excessive at all.
B. In his cross examination he has stated that land line connection was given in the name of Gunindra Nath Das on 01-01-1997. It was not in the name of the agency. The network system was made with one computer. Since 2008 to 2010 the charge of each month was Rs.250/- to Rs.300/-. He has denied that the meter reading for the period of 01-05-2010 to 01-06-2010 was not correct. He has stated that it is impossible that computer report or call report becomes wrong in some time. He was not informed about any complaint. He does not know about the Pleader's notice. If somebody down load the computer in the whole day and night then such type of bill may be prepared. He has denied that the pass word number was not known to the department. The ID number is also known to the department. Somebody may use the land line from other telephone, but broad band connection cannot be used. He has denied that some person of the department using pass word and user ID entered the same in the bill of the complainant. He does not know whether the office had made any inquiry relating to the complaint filed by the complainant. In further re-examination he has exhibited the call detailed report as Ext. 'Ka' and the forwarding letter as Ext. 'Kha'. In his further cross examination he has admitted that he could not submit the Ext.'Ka' prior to filing of the case. He has denied that Ext.'Ka' was prepared fraudulently.
7. After going through the evidences on record it is found that according to the complainant the bill dated 06-06-2010 and 06-08-2010 are excessive as prior to that he had to pay Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per month. He had made a complaint on 06-09-2010 to make an inquiry into the matter and to send correct bill to him, but no inquiry is made. Thus the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service. But the opposite parties have denied it.
According to the opposite party the networking system of the complainant is controlled by single computer and all the bill assessment is coming out through one computer with particular Mac address. The bill is computerised and generated on the basis of the actual usages made by the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service. The opposite parties shave submitted the call report which contains the usages of the complainant. The complainant has given the suggestion to the opposite party that by using the pass word and ID of the complainant the employees of the opposite party entered their usages in the bill of the complainant. But the complainant has failed to show the entry made in the call report which are used by the employee of the opposite party. The complainant has also failed to show the entry in the call report which are not used by the complainant or his men/employees. As because in the bill dated 06-06-2010 and 06-08-2010 i.e. for the period of 01-05-2010 to 01-0602010 and 01-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 respectively are much more than the bills which are issued prior to that, the complainant is going to say that those bill are prepared wrongly. But the complainant has failed to show what is the wrong committed by the opposite party. The complainant has submitted a copy of the complaint made by him before the Junior Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Barpeta on 06-09-2010. But no result is come out on that complaint. He has also not made any appeal in the higher authority of the opposite party regarding non-compliance of his complaint by the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Barpeta.
The opposite parties by submitting the call report have been able to show that the units for which the bills were prepared were consumed by the complainant. As the complainant has failed to show that the units which were not used by them are entertained in the call report and the bill it cannot be held that the false units are shown in the bill and the bill amount is excessive.
Hence all these four issues are decided against the complainant.
8. Issue No.6:-
As the Issue Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are decided against the complainant, in my view, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
9. In result on the basis of the decision of other issues, it is held that the complainant is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for.
Hence the complaint petition is dismissed on contest. The parties will bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 16th day of February , 2018.
Dictated & corrected by me.
(Smti. C. R. Goswami) (Smti. C. R. Goswami)
President, President,
District Consumer Forum, District Consumer Forum,Barpeta
