IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 165/09 DATED 02.09.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant H.R. Ramesh S/o late H.S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, R/at # 1449, C and D Block, Sanjeravi Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23.<br /> <br /> (By Sri PGR, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Senior Accounts Officer TR, Office of General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore.<br /> 2. The General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri A.R. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05.05.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 26.05.2005<br /> Date of order : 02.09.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 MONTH 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to restored the telephone connection No: 2540511 and to refund the fixed monthly charges, as well as other charges collected and the cost of the proceedings and so also damages for the mental tension and agony in a sum of Rs.20,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant is the consumer of BSNL bearing No: 1116959920064226. His telephone number is 2540511. The complainant is paying the bills under ECS from his account number 33501 0100102378 in Punjab National Bank Extension counter-Court, Mysore Main 335.<br /> <br /> 3. Further it is alleged that, the out going calls from the telephone of the complainant were barred several times from many months. When ever the complainant calls an out going number, the recorded voice says that, he had not paid the bill and hence, out going calls have been barred. There is no question of non-payment of bills as such as same is paid through ECS. Sufficient fund in the account of the bank of the complainant is maintained. There was no question of dishonoring the payment under ECS by the banker. The complainant wrote to the opposite parties on 02.05.2008. On receipt of the letter the opposite parties set right the matter. Again the opposite parties barred the out going calls. When the complainant tried to make calls from his phone the recorded message tells that, the out going calls are barred for non payment of the bill. Again notice dated 30.06.2008 was sent to the first opposite party. The first opposite party replied stating that, the bill dated 07.03.2008 has not been paid by ECS as per the statement received from the bank for the reason founds insufficient. By the reply the complainant was called upon to pay the bill amount of Rs.410/-. Copy of the bill was also sent to the complainant. There after the complainant issued legal notice dated 01.09.2008 to the first opposite party along with the cheque for Rs.410/-. In the mean time the complainant wrote to the banker to know the reason for dishonoring the ECS payment. From the bank complainant received the letter dated 15.09.2008 stating that, there was no return of ECS. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.10.2008 to the first opposite party bringing to its notice the reply that, the complainant had received from the bank. After some time again phone was disconnected. The complainant sent one more notice dated 09.02.2009. Phone connection was given on 12.02.2009. Again it was disconnected. Ultimately the complainant sent notice dated 18.03.2009 calling upon to restore the connection and to furnish the details of the amounts etc.,. It is stated that, the opposite parties are receiving the payments regularly and inspite of it, telephone connection is not restored till today. It amounts to deficiency in service. It is caused mental agony to the complainant and members of the family. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint and to award the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 4. The opposite parties have filed versions stating that, the complainant opted for payment of telephone bills through ECS system of payment as per his request and as per stipulated terms and conditions, that service is free and no separate charges are levied. The telephone had to be disconnected for out going calls on 21.04.2008 for dues of Rs.410/- in respect of bill dated 07.03.2009. Payment of that bill was not received as per the information received in respect of ECS system. The subscriber had incoming calls. As per the request letter of the complainant dated 08.05.2008 the out going facility was also extended. Again the complainant did not pay the dues of the bill dated 07.07.2008 amounting to Rs. 433/- as per the official report received in ECS system. The telephone was to be disconnected. As soon as the payment is made telephone can be re-connected. Further it is contended that, ECS payments are subject to certain terms and conditions. The disconnection is due to the fault of the complainant and his bankers only. The complainant is also responsible to watch for receipt of the bills and to ensure payment there off. Inadequate balance in the bank account of the complainant is the reason for disconnection. This information has been received through the official report. There is no breach of any contractual obligation on the part of the opposite parties. Also it is contended that, the complainant was fully aware of the dues. Bonafied action has been taken by BSNL in accordance with rules. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. To substantiate the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed the affidavit and also produced certain documents. On the other hand for the opposite parties an authorized officer has filed the affidavit where in the facts mentioned in the version are stated. The opposite parties have also produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned complainant and also the learned advocate for the opposite parties and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 6. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- In substance the complainant contended that, since the telephone bill is to be paid through ECS, there is no question of non payment and hence, disconnection of the telephone in question amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand the opposite parties justify the disconnection on the ground of non payment of bills.<br /> <br /> 9. First of all, let us consider the payment of bills through ECS. The opposite parties have produced Xerox copy of authorization given by the complainant which is mandate form of electronic clearing scheme. Amongst other facts, it is stated there in that, the complainant has authorized his bank to raise the debits in his account on receipt of BSNL bills through the system. From this mandate it is clear that, the complainant has authorized his banker to debit the amount of BSNL telephone bill in his account.<br /> <br /> 10. Learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that, firstly there was no obligation on the part of the opposite parties to collect the amount of the bills through the said system and that, system has been opted by the complainant as convenience and that fact is mentioned on the reverse of the telephone bill at serial No:10 and the said instructions is to the effect that “Please avail ECS facility to avoid standing in long queue at cash counters and avail 1% discount in next bill”. Hence, the fact that, the complainant has opted said system for payment of the telephone bill, is for his convenience only. Also the learned advocate for the opposite parties has submitted that, in case the customers adopts said facility, there will be discount at 1% and in fact the customers having adopted that system no extra service charge or fees has been collected.<br /> <br /> 11. Considering the mandate in respect of electronic clearing scheme, as well as other facts and the material on record, at the out set it is clear that, only for convenience of the customer the system has been adopted and because the customer had adopted the said system his responsibility or liability of the payment of the telephone bill has not been discharged.<br /> 12. Added to the above fact, in the case on hand, the opposite parties contended that, as per the report received, the bill in respect of telephone of the complainant was not honored for the reason inadequate balance in the bank account. Copy of the statement is produced by the opposite parties. For various reasons, the telephone bills of many customers including that of the complainant reported as undebited and as against the present complainant reason mentioned is in sufficient balance. Hence, prima-facie on the basis of this report and the other material on record, it has been established for the opposite parties that, the telephone bill pertaining to the complainant was not honoured.<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant vehemently argued that, all along in his bank account, there was sufficient fund to honour the bill in question and in this regard copy of pass book is produced. It is true, as could be seen from the pass book at relevant point of time there was balance in the account of the complainant to honour the bill in question. Most important point needs to be considered is whether the bill of the BSNL has been honoured or otherwise. If at all for any reason the telephone bill was not honoured by the banker the opposite parties or BSNL is nothing to do with it. The complainant in this regard points out that, he called upon his banker and the banker replied as per the letter dated 15.09.2008 stating that, there was no return of ECS debit in the amount amounting to Rs.410/- on 07.03.2008. It was requested to inform to collect date and the amount. First of all considering this letter, the bank intended to explain that on 07.03.2008, there was no return of ECS debit in the account of the complainant. Here it may be noted that, it is not at all the case of the opposite parties that, on 07.03.2008 the banker of the complainant returned the bill. The bill is dated 07.03.2008. Hence, on the said date there may not be any question of debiting the amount in the system. It appears for this reasons itself the banker has called upon the complainant to inform the correct date.<br /> <br /> 14. The complainant submitted that, the opposite parties had sent the bill through bank of Baroda, but that bank is not concerned to the complainant. For this, first of all the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that, bank of Baroda is sponsor bank and hence, the BSNL had sent the bills through that bank not only of the present complainant but of all other customers. It is not so relevant through which bank the bill was sent but as to whether it was honoured or otherwise.<br /> <br /> 15. For a movement keeping apart the contentions of the parties in respect of payment of bill through ECS, as noted here before, at the outset we have to consider whether just because the customer has adopted the said system absolve him of the liability of payment of the bill amount or otherwise. The system is adopted by the customer for his convenience for which no service charge has been levied and more over from the Rules and Regulations of the BSNL, it is clear that, the subscribers are bound to watch the timely receipt of the bill and if not received, obtain duplicate bill.<br /> <br /> 16. In the case on hand, it is important to note that, as alleged the complaint and stated by the complainant, whenever he calls out going numbers the recorded voice said that, complainant had not paid the bill and hence, the out going calls were barred. From this it is crystal clear that, the complainant was fully aware that, the bill was not paid. When he was fully aware of the fact that, telephone was not paid, was it not his duty to ascertain from the opposite parties as to the dues and if there was no dues, that, fact could have been brought to the notice of the opposite parties. The complainant had knowledge at least through recorded voice message that out going calls were barred for the reason non payment of the bill. Hence, no fault can be found on the opposite parties in disconnecting the telephone.<br /> <br /> 17. It is not at all the case of the complainant that telephone bill dated 07.03.2008 has been debited in his bank account consequently it is clear that, through ECS system that bill amount has not been credited to the opposite parties or BSNL. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that, along with legal notice dated 01.09.2008 the complainant sent cheque for Rs.410/-. Hence, in respect of the bill dated 07.03.2008 the complainant sent the cheque with notice dated 01.09.2008. There was no payment in between the date. However, it is submitted for the opposite parties that, on the earlier request made by the complainant out going calls were also restored. But, however the complainant failed to pay the bill amount and there was disconnection.<br /> <br /> 18. From the facts, further it is made out that, even as alleged in the complaint again there was telephone disconnection barring out going calls and this time also there was recorded voice message of non payment of bill. The opposite parties contended that, the bill dated 07.07.2008 for Rs.443/- is outstanding even till today. Copy of that bill is produced by the opposite parties. It is not at all the case of the complainant that, he has paid the bill amount of Rs.433/- or that amount has been collected by the opposite parties through ECS system. In respect of this bill, the opposite parties further contended that, that has also not been honoured as per the official report and that report is placed on record. For the reason no such account, the bill for Rs.423/- has been reported un paid.<br /> <br /> 19. The learned complainant argued that, even though the telephone was disconnected, the opposite parties collected the amount through ECS system. In this regard counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that, it is not that the bill in question dated 07.03.2008 and 07.07.2008 have been collected. The other bills have been collected. Also it is clarified that, the telephone of the complainant was not disconnected all through the period or dates but it is submitted that on the request of the complainant the telephone was reconnected and the complainant in fact used the telephone. To substantiate this fact and to make out that, the complainant had made outgoing calls also for various periods, the opposite parties have produced the extracts generated in the system in respect of the telephone. Hence, the contention of the complainant that, even though he did not use the telephone, the opposite parties have deducted the amount, cannot be expected.<br /> 20. Considering the facts, we are of the opinion that, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties and on the other hand, it is made out that, the telephone has been disconnected for the reason the bill amount remained un paid.<br /> 21. Accordingly we answer the point No.1 in negative. <br /> 22. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd September 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />