Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 22nd day of September, 2003
CD No.23/2003
S.Bhagavan Reddy,
S/o Thirupathi Reddy
Dudyala Village,
Kothapalli Mandal
Kurnool District. . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri.G.Nagalakshmi Reddy.
-Vs-
The Divisional Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kurnool. . . Opposite party represented by
his counsel Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma
O RE R E R
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party for return of Rs.1,320/- collected by the opposite party excessively and Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that in December, 1999 the complainant got phone connection and the first consumption bill was served on him in 06-02-2001 at the urban rate @ Rs.240/- for 2 months even though his Village is in Rural area and the rent collectable is at Rs.100/- for two months in Violation of the promise and representation made by Departmental Officer of the opposite party at the time of booking for the phones, even though the Village of the complainant is covered under Rural areas Certificate and the Rural Village like M.Lingapuram, Guvalakintla of the Kothapalli Mandal rents were collect at Rural rate of Rs.100/- for two months. Hence a total of Rs.1,320/- was collected in excess from the complainant and there is no justification for such collection and showing the dis-crimination between the telephone users of the Village. Especially when the Chief General Manger, Telecom Circle has clarified in favour of the Rural Telephone users.
3. The complainant filed sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments and alleging t he Chief General Manager, Telecom Circle Order dated 12-02-2001 as clarified that in cases where Villagers are connected through urban Exchanges the rental should be charged on Rural rates and relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 Viz., (1) Bill dated 06-04-2002 for Rs.237/- for the period 01-02-2002 to 31-03-2002. (2) Bill dated 06-10-2002 for Rs.231/- for the period of 01-08-2002 to 30-09-2002.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant the opposite party made its appearance and contested the matter by filing its written version.
5. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case requiring the strict proof of the complaint averments as to the providing of the connection to the complainant in December, 1999 and the service of the first bill in 06-02-2001 as the complainant was provided with Telephone connection to the complainant at Dudyala Village with indicator number AMK-224241 on 06-01-2001 from the Atmakur Telephone Exchange on payment of Rs.1,000/- as deposit. It alleges the falsity in complainant’s affidavit as to the providing phone connection to the complainant in December, 1999 as the connection was given on 06-01-2001 as stated above and the facts stated in the affidavit of the complainant is contradictory to the realities in record. It submits that there are different types of rent for the different areas fixed by the DOT, New Delhi depending upon the equipped capacity of the Telephone Exchange from which the Telephone connection is provided to the subscriber. For example under scheme A the Rural Areas having Telephone Exchange with less than 1000 Telephone connection. The by monthly rent is Rs.100/- and by monthly free calls are 250 under scheme-B if the location is Rural without Telephone Exchange nearby and the Telephone connection taken from the Telephone Exchange having more than 1000 connections the by monthly rent is Rs.220/- and by monthly free calls are 250. Under scheme-C in the Telephone Exchanges having more than 1000 and less than 30,000/- Telephone Connections the by monthly rent is Rs.240/- and the by monthly free calls 150 and in the instant case even though the complainant’s Telephone connection is located at Dudyala Village which is rural area as its Telephone connection has been provided from the Atmakur Telephone Exchange which is having more than 1000 Telephone connections it falls under the scheme-B. as no letter of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Hyderabad dated 12-02-2001 mentioned in the affidavit of the complainant is find into the record it denies the truth in the allegation of excess collect ion. It lastly submits as per the guidelines of the Directorate New Delhi in letter No.3-5/2000 R and C (PT) dated 29-12-2000/12-01-2001 of BSNL, New Delhi the monthly rent from 01-02-2001 onwards was Rs.110/- if it was connected to Exchange having about 1000 connections and the below 30,000/- connections and therefore there being any excess collection of the rent and there being any truth in complainant’s case and there by any of his entitleness to the claims made seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party files a sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version contents and relies upon the documents record marked in Ex.B1 i.e., Tariff Circular No.3-5/2001 R and C (PT) dated 29-12-2000/12-01-2001.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case and any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party entitling him to the reliefs sought.
8. The Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the consumption bills for the Telephone connection of the complainant for the periods 01-02-2002 to 31-03-2002 and 1st August, 2002 30th September, 2002 envisages the date of the installation of the said phone as 06-01-2001 and hence the averment in the complaint that the complainant was given Telephone connection in the December, 1999 and the contention of the complainant in his sworn affidavit that the Telephone connection to him was given the April, 2002 remains for from the truth. The Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 further envisage the said connection is in the Atmakur Exchange. The contentions of the opposite party that the Atmakur Telephone Exchange as having more than 1000 Telephone connections from 23-09-1999 on wards consequent to opening of the SBM Telephone Exchange at Atmakur alleged in the written version and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party were not denied by the complainant. The complainant not even placed the so called order for the Chief General Manger, Telecom Circle, A.P. Hyderabad dated 12-02-2001 wherein the alleges the Telephone connections of the Rural areas connected to the Urban Exchanges to be charged rural rates of rent. Hence there appears no much force in the said contention of the complainant alleged in his sworn affidavit while such is so as the connection to the Atmakur Exchange which is having more than 1000 connections. The Telephone connection of the complainant comes under Scheme-B and the guidelines provided in Ex.B1 Tariff Circular. As the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 envisages the demand of rent at the rate of Rs.220/- by monthly and it being in accordance with the scheme-B and Tariff Circular in Ex.B1 there appears no excess collection of the rent from the complainant by the opposite party. Especially when there is no material as to the alleged promise for collection of rentals at rural rates and it violation by the opposite party.
9. Therefore, there appears neither any deficiency of service of the opposite party in the alleged grievances of the complainant nor there being any justifiable cause of action to the complainant’s case the case of the complainant is remaining devoid of merits and force and consequently, the complainant is being not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 22nd day of September, 2003.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:-Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill dated 06-04-2002 for Rs.237/- for the period 01-02-2002 to
31-03-2002.
Ex.A2 Bill dated 06-10-2002 for Rs.231/- for the period of 01-08-2002 to
30-09-2002.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Tariff Circular No.3-5/2000 R and C (PT) dated 12-01-2001.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
