This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 31-07-2007 in the presence of the Sri. Y. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and Sri. A. Ravindra for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri. P.V Subrahmanyam, President )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against accounts officer and General Manager of BSNL, Khammam as opposite parties with the following averments:-
Contd…2...
::2::
2. The complainant, a practicing lawyer at Khammam, was a subscriber/ consumer of the Opposite parties in connection with cell phone post paid connection no. 9440160558 at Khammam with a monthly rental of Rs.325/-. In the application issued by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of applying for the cell phone connection the complainant mentioned Rs.500/- as the maximum amount of utilisation of phone calls. But to the surprise of the complainant the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.2800/- in the month of February 2004. When the complainant approached the opposite parties and questioned about the wrong bill and asked for a detailed bill, the opposite parties said that they were not concerned with the bill and said that the bill was prepared by the state authority office at Hyderabad. They further stated that their duty was to collect the bill amount only; however they said that they would enquire into the wrong bill and inform the complainant; but surprisingly the phone of the complainant was disconnected at the end of February 2004 without intimation or at least notice. Then the complainant approached the opposite parties and questioned about the disconnection and also requested to take back the SIM card, but the opposite parties refused and demanded for payment. Even thereafter the complainant has been going round the office of the opposite parties. To avoid him the opposite parties disconnected even his land line telephone bearing no. 229916 of Khammam, without any intimation.
3. While so the opposite parties issued a notice dated 10-05-2005 to the complainant demanding him to pay Rs.9863/- towards rent and call charges, in spite of disconnection in the month of February 2004. It is mentioned in the notice that the cell phone connection was closed on 31-10-2004. Contd…3..
::3::
Even though the disconnection was made in the month of February 2004 it is mentioned in the notice that the cell phone was disconnected on 31-10-2004.
4. The complainant is ready to pay Rs.2800/-, which was due on the date of disconnection; if it is clarified with detailed bill. The opposite parties are making efforts to recover the wrong bill amount somehow or other. The complainant having no other go, approached this forum praying to 1) declare the bill for Rs.9863/- as null and void and to direct the opposite parties to give detailed bill for the actual utilisation of the phone by the complainant, 2) to stay further proceedings till the disposal of the case, 3) to direct the opposite parties to rectify the land phone which was disconnected by them and 4) for costs.
5. The petition is resisted by the opposite parties by filing their counter with the following contentions. (The counter is not signed either by the opposite parties or by their advocate.)
6. It is true that the complainant is a subscriber of post paid cell phone bearing no. 9440160558 at Khammam but the complainant falsely represented that he opted for Rs.500/- maximum utilisation per month for his cell phone connection. He has not opted any credit limit. The complainant also falsely represented that he approached the opposite parties for detailed bill, in spite of it the telephone was disconnected without intimation. Infact the opposite parties repeatedly requested the complainant to pay the bill amount for the month of February 2004. The call charges of the complainant for the above said cell phone were based upon the calls used by him. The complainant approached this forum to avoid payment of the call charges. There is neither technical nor non-technical defect of the opposite parties. Contd…4..
::4::
The complainant utilisised the cell phone during the billing period for which the bill for the month of February 2004 was issued, but the complainant misrepresented the facts to this forum.
7. The real state of affairs are, the complainant obtained the above mentioned Cell phone connection (account no.200203107) from the month of January 2003 (date of activation is 12-01-2003). The complainant has not deposited any amount towards cell phone connection even though he was informed over his cell phone regarding his dues. There was no response. The complainant has also committed default in payment of the bills for the Land Line connection vide telephone no.229916 for Rs. 3199/-. So, both the cell phone and landline were disconnected. The complainant did not give any voluntary closure of his cell phone connection. Therefore the services were permanently closed on 31-10-2004 due to non-payment of dues.
8. There is no cause of action to file this case. The cause of action mentioned in the complaint is invented. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by both parties. Arguments of both sides heard.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the declaration and direction to the opposite parties, as prayed for in the complaint?
Point:-
10. The case of the complainant is that he has obtained a cell phone connection bearing no. 9440160558 post paid from the opposite parties and that he had opted maximum utilisation of the phone for Rs.500/ but to his surprise he received bill for Rs.2800/- for the month of February 2004 Contd…5...
::5::
and when the complainant approached the opposite parties and asked for a detailed bill, without supplying detailed bill, they have disconnected the phone on the last day of February 2004. It is his further case that his request to take back the SIM card was also refused by the opposite parties, on the other hand the Land Line telephone connection of the complainant bearing no. 229916 was also disconnected. Later, on 10-05-2005 a notice was issued to the complainant calling upon him to pay Rs.9863/- mentioning that the cell connection was closed on 31-10-2004, even though the disconnection was made in the month of February 2004. The demand notice is filed along with the complaint but the same is not marked as an exhibit.
11. The opposite parties' contention is that the cell phone was extensively used by the complainant for which bill was issued for the calls made by him. The opposite parties denied that the complainant opted for maximum utilisation of the phone for Rs.500/- only.
12. During the pendency of the case the opposite parties filed as many as 18 duplicate invoices with IA. No.132/2006 concerning the cell phone in question, covering the period 30-06-2003 to 31-12-2004 and showed the total amount due by the complainant to the opposite parties as Rs.9863/-. The said petition was adjourned 9 times for counter of the complainant. In the 9th adjournment the complainants’ advocate reported no counter, therefore the petition was allowed. The prayer in the petition is to receive the said invoices and mark them as exhibits on behalf of the opposite parties. Contd…6..
::6::
During the pendency of the said petition or at any time thereafter the complainant never disputed the correctness of the 18 invoices filed by the opposite parties along with the petition IA.No.132/2006. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the request of the complainant to produce details of the outgoing calls from 12-01-2003 to 31-10-2004 could not be complied with because as per the equipment available with BSNL no particulars of bills can be stored beyond 3 months from the date of its record. A memo dated. 09-04-2007 was filed by the opposite parties to that effect wherein it is further stated that the CD.74/2005 it self was filed on 30-05-2005, the date of appearance of the opposite parties is 27-06-2005 and IA.No.167/2006 which was filed by the complainant in the month of July 2005 seeking outgoing calls particulars which is not possible for BSNL in any manner due to storage capacity of the equipment. Even the contentions mentioned in the memo of the opposite parties are not disputed by the complainant.
13. If really the complainant opted for Rs.500/- utilisation per month, it is not known as to why it is stated by him in Para 4 of the complaint that he is ready to pay Rs.2800/- towards consumption charges for the month of February 2004. The complainant has not produced copy of the application form wherein he has stated to have mentioned in column No. 12 that maximum utilisation of the telephone was limited to Rs.500/-. The counsel for the opposite parties stated that due to lapse of time the documents were destroyed as per rules of the department. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the complainant has not made any deposit for the cell phone as he had land line connection also and because cell phone charges are not paid and as cell phone Contd…7..
::7::
connection was given taking into consideration land line connection, outgoings for both the connections were disconnected. Subsequently total services were closed from 31-10-2004.
14. Therefore in the circumstances discussed above I am of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the bill for Rs.9863/- declared as null and void and for direction to restore land line connection. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for in the complaint. The interim order dt. 30-05-2005 issued by this forum in IA.No.89/2005 directing the opposite parties not to take any further steps in connection with the cell phone connection number is set aside. The point is answered against the complainant.
15. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation. Corrected and pronounced by us in this Open Forum on Thursday the 16th day of August, 2007.
President Male Member Lady Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
::8::
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant Opposite Parties
Nil Nil
President Male Member Lady Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
