O R D E R Bindhu M.Thomas, Member. Petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner is an LIC agent. The petitioner has a telephone connection in her name in the BSNL Telephone Exchange, Vakathanam. The number provided is 2462849. In the bimonthly bills the gross calls recorded always exceeded 500 to 600 calls. The abovesaid telephone calls having been made from the telephone number of the petitioner at numbers with which she was not concerned at all. The petitioner could not remit the bill of 7/8/06 upto 29.8.06 and the said bill was remitted on 11.10.06. Due to the non payment of the aforesaid bill, the petitioner's phone was disconnected on 5.9.2006 and still not having connection. She got a bill dated 7/10/06 demanding Rs.1170/-. According to the petitioner the abovesaid bill included the call charges for the disconnection period 5/9/06 to 30/9/06. The petitioner alleges that there exist another phone in the same number which is used by Mr.Abrham, Tharayil (H) Vettathukavala, Kaithappalam, Puthuppally .When there was no telephone connection in her telephone, it was used by Mr.Abrham. Hence the petitioner prays for the cancellation of the illegal bill, refund of the extra amount remitted as per bill dated 11/10/06, getting the phone reconnected and Rs.3000/- as compensation and cost. -2- The opposite parties entered appearance and the Chief Accounts Officer, BSNL, Kottayam filed version on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite parties contented that the bills were issued as per meter reading and there is no error in the bills. The opposite parties further contented that the petitioner's telephone is having dynamic barring facility and therefore no calls can be originated from the telephone without knowing the secret code of subscriber. The opposite parties denied the allegation of existence of another phone with the same number. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The points for determination are: (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. (ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the petitioner and opposite parties. Documents from the side of the petitioner are marked as Exhibit A1 to A9. Point No.1. The petitioner alleged that there was misuse of her telephone She had made grievaness with regard to misuse of her telephone and the excessive telephone bills before the opposite party BSNL. The copy of the petition is marked as exhibit A6. In A6 the petitioner requested for the details of calls made from her phone during the disconnection period. The petitioner alleged that telephone calls having been made from telephone number of her with which she was not concerned at all. According to the petitioner there exist another phone in the same number which is used by. Andamma Abrham, Thrayil Veedu, Kaithappalam and most of the calls recorded in the petitioner's bills are the calls made by Andamma Abrham. A complaint made by the petitioner to the director, BSNL Kottayam dated 5.8.2005 is marked as exhibit A7. The petitioner further alleged that she got phone connection only in 2001, but the number and connection given to her was in somebody else's use prior to her. Opposite parties in their version denied all the allegtions and stated that the billing was made according to use of the petitioner and there is no deficiency on their part. The opposite parties defended that the petitioner's telephone is having dynamic barring facility and therefore no calls can be originated from the telephone without knowing the secret number of subscriber. -3- The petitioner states that she could not remit the bill of 7/8/06 upto 29.8.06 and the said bill was remitted on 11/10/06. The copy of the receipt showing the remittance is marked as exhibit A1 and the abovesaid bill is marked as exhibit A2. Petitioner states that due to the non-payment of the A2 bill, her phone was disconnected on 5.9.06. The next bill dated 7/10/06 for Rs.1170 is marked as exhibit A5. Petitioner alleged that the A5 bill included the call charges for the disconnection period, 5/9/06 to 30.9.06 also. The opposite parties contented that telephone was disconnected only on 15/9/06 and reconnected on 11/10/06. They further contented that due to the abovesaid reason the call charges from 1/8/06 to 15/9/06 along with the outstanding bill dated 7/8/06 for Rs.586/- was included in the bill dated 7/10/06 for Rs.564/-. The petitioner again alleged that the bill dated 7/12/06 which was issued after filing this petition before the forum is only for Rs.257/-. The said original bill is produced and marked as Exhibit A8. On perusal of the records, we find that the bill dated 7/8/06 for Rs.586/- was paid on 11/10/06. But the very same amount Rs.586/- is added in the next bill dated 7/10/06 as total outstanding amount. According to the petitioner the phone was disconnected on 5.9.06 and as per the opposite parties it was on 15.9.06. Anyway the phone remained dead for some days and that fact is not in dispute. But as per Ext A5 bill calls were recorded and charged for the above mentioned disconnection period also, making a gross amount of Rs.564/-. In our opinion this amounts to severe deficiency in service by the opposite parties. The next main allegation levelled against the opposite parties is about the excess billing due to the misuse of her telephone line. The petitioner had made grievances with regard to the misuse of her telephone line and excessive billing before the opposite party BSNL. But BSNL defended that the petitioner's telephone is having dynamic locking facility and no calls can be originated from such a telephone without knowing the secret code of subscriber. In this behalf we would like to bring to notice the departmental instructions in brief relating to the excessive billing. In case of a complaint of excess billing, meter reading is to be taken every fortnight and names of all subscribers whose current fortnightly reading shows a sudden spurt are to be identified and that in case of -3- sudden spurt the telephone line should be placed on observation and a responsible staff is to be deputed to the subscriber's premises to check up whether there was any special occasion which might have given rise to such spurt. A suitable officer is also to be deputed by department to inspect the installation. Eventhough dynamic locking facility is introduced the BSNL authorities have to follow the departmental instructions relating to the excessive billing because misuse possible even when dynamic lock provided. But here in this case these had not been followed by the BSNL people even after getting complaints from the petitioner which is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is ordered as follows. The opposite party BSNL will give fresh bill for the period between 1.8.06 to 30.9.06 on the basis of average of three billing periods prior to the aforesaid period and also taking into consideration the disconnection period. After issuing fresh bill the opposite party will refund balance amount out of the amount if paid for the disputed bill with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. Such refund will be given only in case the petitioner has made the payment of the disputed bill. Otherwise the petitioner will be liable to pay the amount of the corrected fresh bill. The opposite parties are directed to consider and dispose of the complaints of the petitioner regarding the misuse of petitioner's telephone line and excessive billing within 3 months time. The opposite parties will pay Rs.1000/- by way of compensation and cost to the petitioner. This order shall complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. APPENDIX Documents from the side of petitioner are marked as exhibits A1 to Ext.A1 - Copy of receipt dated 11.10.06 given by BSNL. Ext.A2- Copy of Bill dated 7.8.06 for Rs.586/- . Ext.A3- Copy of details about calls. -4- Ext A4- Copy of details of about calls Ext.A5- Copy of bill dated 7.10.06 for Rs.1170/-. Ext.A6- Copy of letter dated 20.10.05 issued by the petitioner to opposite party. Ext.A7- Copy of letter 5/8/05 issued by the petitioner to opposite party. Ext.A8- Original bill dated 7/12/96 for Rs.257/-. Ext.A9- Copy of letter dated 20.4.06 sent by the petitioner to opposite party.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
