Date of Filing:16.09.2008 Date of Order:15.01.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2027 OF 2008 Mohammed Akbar H. #47/75, 2nd Main Road Kausar Nagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore 560 032 Complainant V/S The Commissioner Office (NE) A.O.T.R. Section, No. 5 Maruthi Complex Papaiah Reddy Layout Banaswadi, Bangalore Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that from the date of connection of the telephone to his residence minimum charges have been paid, but the excess amount of Rs. 1,190/- as per the bill May 2008 has not been paid. BSNL is demanding payment of bill. The said bill is incorrect. It is the case of the complainant that the line man used the telephone number of the complainant during repairs at the polls. It is not the fault of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sought to take action against the BSNL for misusing the calls from his telephone. 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that as per records of the opposite party no complaint has been registered from the complainant. The complainant is having STD facility with locking facility. The telephone was disconnected for non-payment of bill on 18.08.2008. The complainant has used the telephone facility and the bill raised by the opposite party is in order. Hence, requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Arguments are heard. Perused the complaint, defence version and the bills. 4. Admittedly, the telephone connection has been disconnected. The opposite party has not taken any steps for recovery of bill amount of Rs. 1,190/-. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant has not registered complaint with them. Therefore, the opposite party was not in a position to make any investigation. It is true that the complainant has not produced any records or copy of complaint to show that he has lodged complaint with opposite party. It is also admitted fact that opposite party has not taken any steps so far to recover the bill amount. So under these circumstances the complaint is premature one. Before approaching this forum the complainant could have registered complaint of his grievance with the opposite party. The opposite party on receiving complaint shall have to investigate the matter and take proper action on the complaint. If the complainant is dis-satisfied with the orders or action taken by the opposite party he has got remedy to prefer appeal or file complaint before the District Forum. The complainant has also got opportunity to put forth his defence or grievance in case the opposite party takes steps for recovery of bill amount. There are still two options open to the complainant. The present complaint is premature one. This forum has no methodology to investigate the matter. Therefore, it is up to the complainant to register his complaint before the opposite party and put forward his grievance. The second option would be in case the opposite party takes steps for recovery of the due amount in that proceedings the complainant will be at liberty to take all the defence available to him. Therefore, with this observation the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The Complaint is dismissed. 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
