By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows:
 

The Complainant is a subscriber in Telephone No. 655403 under Vythiri Exchange. Usually the Complainant was issued a bill around Rs. 1,000/- for the call charge. During the period 01.3.2003 to 30.4.2003 the Complainant was directed to pay Rs.2,520/- on or before 27.5.2003. In fear of disconnection the Complainant remitted Rs.2,520/- on 27.5.2003. The request on the part of the Complainant for the detail of the bill issued was unanswered, later an another bill dated 07.07.2003 was sent to the complainant which was to be paid on or before 05.08.2003 of Rs.7,027/- and this bill was during the period 01.05.2003 to 30.6.2003. A written application was given for the detail bill of the relevant period but the Complainant was not given any detail of the called numbers though requested.

2. The Complainant's Telephone connection had no STD facilities. The amount demanded in the bills are nothing but due to the error in metering of the numbers. The telephone connection was disconnected on the non payment of the bill amount. Even after disconnection the Complainant received an another bill of Rs.666/- for 608 metered calls. The Complainant's pray for the nullity of the bills issued 07.07.2003 and 07.09.2003. The Opposite Parties issued the bill not basing on actual calls. The disconnection of the telephone adversely effected routine work of the Complainant which also resulted heavy loss. The disconnection of the telephone is absolutely illegal it was also known to the Opposite party that the telephone service given to the complainant was having some software problem which caused the bill of excess amount. The issuance of telephone bills for an exorbitant amount beyond the charge leviable for the actually called numbers are nothing but deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite parties to declare that the bills issued 07.05.2003 and 07.07.2003 are not legal and enforceable, to direct the Opposite Parties to issue the actual call details during the period 01.03.2003 to 31.8.2003. The telephone connection of the Complainant is to be reconnected. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.35,000/-.

3. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. According to them the telephone cases are not maintainable in Consumer Forum and having no jurisdiction.

4. The Complainant is a subscriber of telephone No.255403 at Vythiri. The bill dated 07.05.2003 of Rs.2,520 plus surcharge Rs. 70/- is in accordance with the calls made. The allegation of the excess charge is incorrect, the request of the complainant for the details of the metered calls could not be given due to the software limitation and which also communicated to the Complainant. The bill dated 07.07.2003 was for Rs. 7,027/- and surcharge Rs. 150/- demanded. The bill dated 01.09.2003 of Rs. 666/- plus Rs. 20/- surcharge was also issued to the Complainant. The bills charged are accountably based in pursuance of meter readings. In the non payment of a telephone bills it was disconnected 04.09.2003. The disconnection of the telephone on the non payment of the bill amount is governed by the provision. The details of the local call could not be given on the technical reason. The reconnection of the telephone is not considerable unless the pending bill amount are paid. The Complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

5. The maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue in the relevant case and found maintainable. The Hon. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala dismissed the Revision Petition No. 35/2003 dated 27.12.2007 given direction to this Forum to dispose the O.P. No.191/2007 on expeditiously on merit.

6. The points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- The Complainant is examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to A11 are marked. Opposite Party filed chief affidavit swearing the contention raised. Ext. B1 and B2 are marked for the Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that the bills issued were not relied on metered calls. The call amount demanded in the bills dated 07.5.2003, 07.07.2003 and 07.09.2003 are unenforceable and the telephone disconnected is to be reconnected.

8. Ext.A2 the bill dated 07.5.2003 is for the calls for the period in between 01.03.2003 to 30.4.2003 of Rs.2,590/- including surcharge for the delayed payment Rs. 70/-. The bill dated 07.07.2003 during the period 01.05.2003 to 30.6.2003 is for the calls and rent which is 7,177/-. The bill dated 07.09.2003 during the period 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2003 which is amounted Rs. 686 including surcharge. According to the Complainant the telephone bills issued for the period prior to the bill dated 07.05.2003 does not consist of a huge amount demanded as such. The request of the Complainant for the detail bill was not considered on the ground of software limitation. A sudden rise in the bill made the Complainant to give an application. The right of the Complainant as a consumer to know whether any error effected in charging the bill is to be duly weighed. The Account Officer (Legal) is examined as OPW1. It is deposed by him that the software limitation means there was no sufficient memory in the instrument to give the consumer the details of the phone calls in the disputed bills. The memory in the computer was not cappacitated to accommodate the entire phone calls. In the absence of detail bill or any other piece of evidence supporting the contention, the bill paid for excess amount is to be tallied with the proceeding bills. The bill dated 07.03.2003 for the metered calls from 01.01.2003 to 28.2.2003 the amount charged is Rs. 912/-. The bill dated 07.01.2003 for the calls from 01.11.2002 to 31.12.2002 the amount charged is Rs. 1000/-. The bill dated 7.11.2002 for the metered calls from 01.09.2002 to 31.10.2002 the amount charged is Rs.1,107/-, the amount in three bills taken excluding the surcharge. On verification of the amount and calls of the proceeding bills the metered calls and the amount comes around Rs.1,000/-. According to OPW1 the bill for exceeding amount was caused due to increase in the charge. The extensity of the increasing call charges cannot deposed in detail by the Opposite Party. The Complainant already remitted the bill amount dated 07.05.2003 which is Rs.2,590/-. The telephone is disconnected due to the non payment of the amount in the bill dated 07.07.2003 for the period from 01.05.2003 to 30.06.2003 and 07.09.2003 for the period for the calls in the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2003 of Rs.686/-. The reason for the non issuance of the bill in detail is on technical grounds. The right on the part of the consumer to get detail of disputed bill cannot be disregarded. We are in the opinion that the telephone bills issued to the consumer No. 2696978 dated 07.05.2003 of bill No. 22847175, the bill dated 07.07.2003 of bill No.26608243 and bill dated 07.09.2003 of bill No. 30667375 are incorrect and not proper. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- The Complainant was the consumer of the telephone No.255403 till it was disconnected due to the non payment of the bills issued. During the period of the disputed bills the Complainant was in use of the telephone, the assessment of the chargeable amount in the relevant period can be taken from average of the proceeding bills. The average amount of the three bills 07.03.2003, 07.01.2003 and 07.11.2002 is Rs.1010/- (Excluding the surcharges). The amount arrived in that calculation can be considered as the amount for the disputed bills excluding the bill dated 07.9.2003 for which the amount charged is lessor than the amount chargeable. The bill dated 07.05.2003 of bill No.22847175 and bill dated 07.07.2003 of bills No.26608243 are cancelled. During the pendancy of the complaint the Complainant had remitted Rs.2,000/- to the Opposite Party which is to be lessened from the future bill amount. The Opposite Party is directed to issued fresh bills to the Complainant for the Rs.1010/- towards the call charges from 01.05.2003 to 30.06.2003 and bill dated 07.05.2003 for the call charges 01.03.2003 to 30.4.2003. In the case of the bill dated 07.09.2003 for the calls from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2003 the bill amount is only Rs.686/-. The Complainant has to remit this amount. The Opposite Party is further directed to reconnect the telephone connection on payment of the amount in the bills issued subsequently.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to reconnect the telephone connection on remittance of the amount in the bill dated 07.09.2003 of bill No. 30667375 and the amount claimed in the fresh bill issued instead of all the bill No.22847175 dated 07.05.2003, bill No. 26608243 dated 07.07.2003 this is to be complied within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of November 2008.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Saleem R.P. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Balachandran Accounts Officer.

OPW2. K. Bhaskaran. Sub Divisional Engineer, S. Bathery.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 Series. Bills.

A2. Bill. dt:07.05.2003.

A2 (a) Receipt.

A3. Complaint letter. dt:25.07.2003.

A4. Bill. dt:07.07.2003.

A5. Copy of Letter. dt:30.09.2003.

A6. Bill. dt:07.09.2003.

A7. Copy of Letter. dt:02.09.2003.

A8. Bill. dt:07.07.2003.

A8 (a) Copy of Receipt. dt:23.10.2003.

A9. Bill. dt:07.11.2003.

A9 (a) Receipt.

A10. Bill. dt:07.05.2004.

A11. Phone Book.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Letter. dt:02.09.2003.

B2 (2 sheets) Details of Tariff dt:11.04.2003.