ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            Complainant has filed this complaint for directing the opp.parties to issue copy of the details of the bills dated 7.8.2003, 7.10.2003 and 7.12.2003 and for other reliefs. 

            The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:

            The complainant is a consumer of the opp.parties.  He is paying the telephone bills promptly and without any dues or delay.   For the period 1.5.2003 to till date only inflated bills are issuing from the 2^nd opp.party’s office for his telephone.   A  bill was issued to him for Rs.2002/- [Rupees two thousand and two only] for the period from 1.5.2003 to 31.7.2003.  Since the bill amount is excessive the  complainant lodged a complaint for the said bill before the JTO., Thevalakkara and the Accounts Officer [TR] Kollam and also requested to furnish him a detailed bill with respect to the time, date and duration of calls.   After that he received a bill dt. 7.10.2003 for Rs.1636/- [Rupees one thousand six hundred and thirty six only] for the period from 1.8.2003 to 30.9.2003.   For the said bill also he requested to issue a print out of the bill.  But no steps have been taken by the opp.parties.   Thereafter when the bill dt. 7.12.2003 for Rs.1305/-  was received he lodged another complaint before the 2^nd and 3^rd opp.parties.   The three bills are issued by the opp.party in an arbitrary manner.  On 15.1.2004 the complainant sent a registered notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opp.parties with respect to the above said bills and requested to issue him a print out of the detailed bills but so far no reply was sent from their part.   The telephone was disconnected on 15.1.2004.  Due to the disconnection of his telephone the complainant sustained heavy loss.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp..parties. .  Hence prays for relief.

            The opp.parties have filed the version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant paid the telephone bills promptly upto bill dated 7.8.2003.  The bill dated 7.10.2003 was paid belatedly on 18.12.2003.  It is admitted that a complaint dated 28.8.2003 was received from the subscriber regarding increase in call charges in bill dated 7.8.2003.  After conducting an enquiry on the complaint, reply was given dated 3.9.2003.  The bill dated 7.8.2003 was issued to the complainant covering three months.   So it is natural that the lbill amount could be high compared to usual bimonthly bills.   There was no error in metering the calls.     Calls were metered  by computer software and not by manual labour.   So no individual error could be caused in metering the calls.  Since the subscriber’s telephone did not have STD/ISD facility no detailed bill could be generated and supplied to the complainant.   At the time of issue of bill dated 7.12.2003, the bill dated 7.10.2003 for Rs.1876/- was outstanding.  It was paid only on 18.12.2003.  Hence the bill dated 7.10.2003 as outstanding bill to be paid.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. Points that would arise for consideration are:

[1] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

[ii] Reliefs and costs.

4. For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Exts.P1 to P11 series are marked.
5. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined.  Exts. D1 to D3 are marked.

6. Points [i] and [ii]

The complaint, a gulf returnees, is admittedly a consumer of the opp.partie’s service for consider5ation in resxpect of his Telephone No.875440 [Thevalakkara Telephone Exchange].  Since the beginning of 2003 that all along he has paying the bills lby the due dates and the average charges had not exceeded Rs.350/-.  But the bill for the period from 1.5.2003 to 31.7.2003 delivered to him for Rs.2002/- was an inflated bill amount compared to the earlier ones.  Yet the complainant remitted the bill before the pay by date and lodged a complaint dated 27.8.2003 to the accounts officer with copy to the JTO. Thevalakkara demanding the detailed  printout of the bill dated 7.8.2003 because the said bill was for an inflated amount of Rs.2002/-  The complaint was repeated to the authorities on the subsequent day also.    But the authorities did not respond at all.  Again bills dated 7.10.2003 for Rs.1636/- and bill dated 7.12.2003 for Rs.1305/- were served which were of inflated nature as the 1^st disputed bill dated 7.8.2003.   The complainant had duly petitioned to the opp.parties against both these bills especially demanding detailed print out and rectification.   The opp.parties continued to be indifferent inspite of repeated petitions against the earlier mentioned three inflated bills.

      The opp.parties were inactive through and through in this regard until they turned up to the Forum except filing the version denying the charges against them and justifying the disputed bills.

      From the Ext.P1 bill onwards the record of the fortnightly units show spurt.   As per the circular letters/guidelines regarding inflated bills circular letter No.4-59/85-TR dt. 9.4.86, the opp.party had  to  conduct enquiry about the cause of spurt in units in the telephone in question.  In this case neither did the opp.parties conduct advance enquiry as per guidelines nor did they conduct enquiry inspite of repeated petitions [Ext.P2,P4,P6 and P9] by the complainant in this regard.   As per circular Lr.No.4-59/85 TR dt. 9.4.86 chapter VI  Investigation of an excess billing complaint para [6], 6[3] , the excess bill complaint must be acknowledged immediately on its receipt.  In this case this is not complied with.  It is also obligatory on the part of the opp.parties to inform the complainant about the result of the investigation regarding the correctness of the bill.   The department completely ignored the objections of the complainant.  As this is the matter about the circular and guidelines the DW.1 clearly deposed in this case that it is not compulsory on their part to inform the complainant about the result of the investigation.  In the cross examination DW.1 deposed that the result of the investigation was given to the complainant in person.  But the fact of the non-receipt of the result of the investigation was convincingly stated by the complainant.   The enquiry allegedly made by the opp.parties in this case especially regarding sudden spurt was simply an eye wash.   And the records later produced in this regard by the opp.party before the Forum are not convincing.

      The opp.parties contended that the lbill dated 7.8.2003 was for 3 months instead of two months.   This naturally increased the bill amount.  This contention is not convincing because the bimonthly bills prior to 7.8.2003 were at the most for rupees between 300/- and 350/-.  Other causes for the inflqated bill referred to, the revised tariff package, the increase in puls rate and the introduction of the code “95” , are not satisfactory explanations in this case.   Because here an unprecedented increase or spurt is witnessed in the disputed bills dated 7.8.2003, 7.101.2003 and 7.12.2003.  Because of the above mentioned reasons a slight difference in charge may happen.  Here what we witness is a sudden spurt only in the 3 bills [Ext.P1, P5 and P8] and not in the bills before and after the disputed bills inspite of the introduction of the revised tariff package, increased pulse rate and the code ‘95’.  Hence t6he reason for the sudden spurt would either be due to the defective recording of the meter reading equipment or some malpractices from the opp.party staff.   As the calls were metered by computer software, and not by manual labour, no individual error could be caused in metering the calls is the contention of the opp.parties.   This is only an assumption and there is no evidence to show that the opp.parties had made proper and matter of fact enquiry in this regard.  Need we observe at this stage that the department has issued specific guidelines and instructions for disposing of complaints of consumers about excessive billings by the subordinate staff of the opp.parties and as held lby the National Commission in the case of Ajay Dube v/s. General manager, Telegraph and Telecommunication & others. 1 [1995] CPJ 2003 , such instructions are mandatory.   As per the guidelines the Consumer/Complainant must be convinced about the efficacy of the enquiry.  If the meter reading equipment is accepted as correct here the spurt must be due to the malpractices of the department staff since the opp.parties did not produce any evidence to prove that the complainant had made all these calls.   The call bills prior to and after the disputed 3 bills record only normal units.   The sudden spurt is very clear in the 3 bills because the bills issued to the complainant prior to 7.8.2003 and after 7.12.2003 normally record only rupees between the range of 350 to 400 at the most inspite of revised tariff package, increase in puls rate and the introduction of the code ‘95’.

      The opp.parties could have very well issued detailed print out of the calls of the bills for the periods, 7.8.2003, 7.10.2003 and 7.12.2003 as per the complainant’s timely petitions, Ext.P2 P4, P6 and P9.  Difficulties if any, the opp.parties could have issued detailed print outs of the subsequent bills, 7.10.2003 and 7.12.2003 by putting the said telephone on observation as the complainant continued to lodge petitions in this regard from 27.8.2003.  Instead of issuing detailed printout, the opp.parties evaded from it tactically by saying that detailed bills are not available in respect of the subscriber’s telephone as it was not having STD/ISD facility.   The complainant had promptly paid the  Ext. P1 bill as per Ext.P3 receipt.  Yet the opp.parties had included Rs.1155/-, a part of the said bill as outstanding in the subsequent bill, Ext.P5.  In cross examination DW.1 clearly admitted that mistake by saying that they had rectified it in the subsequent bill.

      In the circumstances we see deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties from the very outset.   That the opp.parties failed to properly acknowledge and attend the petitions of the complainant.  Ext. D1 and D3 produced by the opp.party in this regard are not satisfactory which was very well revealed in the deposition of DW.1.  There is no record stands produced to prove that the opp.parties served D1 and D3 to the complainant.  The opp.parties did not inform the complainant about the result of the investigation regarding the correctness of the bill and the meter reading equipment which are mandatory as per the  guidelines.  During cross examination DW.1 deposed that the giving of the result of the investigation is not compulsory or obligatory.   This is another instance of deliberate deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  The non issuance of detailed printouts of the disputed bills as per Ext.P2,P4, P6 and P9 petitions is yet another instance of irregularities on the part of the opp.parties.  “Since the subscriber’s telephone did not have STD/ISD facility no detailed bill could be generated and supplied to the complainant” is the evasive reply in this regard by the opp.parties.   The indifference and carelessness of the opp.parties in preparing bills can very well be seen in Ext.P5 where a part [Rs.1155] of the remitted bill is included as outstanding.  Hence the opp.parties are liable to pay for the deficiencies.

In the result the com plaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to issue detailed printouts of the bills as prayed for  and to pay Rs2500/- [Rupees two thousand and five hundred only] as compensation with 9% interest from the date of order coupled with Rs.500/- [Rupees five hundred only] as litigation charges.   The opp.parties are further directed to conduct proper enquiry regarding the disputed bills as per the guidelines.   The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

Dated this the  30^TH        day of March, 2009.

.

I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Peter Mathew

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Bill dated 7.8.2003

P2. – Copy of complaint sent to the opp.party

P3,. – Receipt

P4. – Copy of complaint sent the opp.party dt. 28.8.2003

P5. -0 Bill dt. 7.10.2003

P6. – Copy of complaint sent to the opp.party dt. 22.10.2003

P7. – Receipt

P8. – Bill dt. 7.12.2003

P9. – Copy of complaint sent to the opp.party dt. 10.12.2003

P10. – series – Bill dt. 11.2.2003, 7.4.2003 and 7.6.2003

P11. – seroes No;; dt. 7.2.2004, 7.4.2004 and 7.6.2004 and 7.8.2004

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – N.. Chandrababu

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Reply to the complaint

D2. – series – Bills

D3. – Reply dt. 19.2.2004 sent to the complainant