BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 02nd day of September, 2010
C.C.No 89/09
Between:
B.Venkateswarlu, S/o B.Sankaraiah,
D.No.2-24, 10 Bollavaram Village, Nandikotkur Mandal,
Kurnool District-518 432.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
1 The General Manager,
Door.No.44 /16/14, B.S.N.L. J.J. Nagar,Telecom District,Kurnool-518 004.
2 Junior Telecom Officer, S.D.O. Telecom Office,
B.S.N.L., D.No.7-101, Allur Road, Nandikotkur-517 401.
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day in the presence of Sri. B.Murali Mohan , Advocate, for complainant , and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.89/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from ordering refund of Rs.3,000/- being the excess demand charges paid by the complainant with costs and grant other reliefs in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is having BSNL land line connection under phone No. 232149. He is regularly paying bills due to the BSNL, Kurnool. In the months of January, 2007 to April 2007 the complainant got heavy amount under the bills even though he has not used the telephone frequently. On verification it is found that most of the calls during the above said period went to Mobile No. 9989641737. The complainant or his family members never made any call to the above said mobile number . The complainant gave number of representations in the office of the OP to verify the correctness of the calls went to Mobile No. 9989641737 from the land line of the complainant. The complainant received the communication from the office of the OP.No.1 stating that Mobile No. 9989641737 to which calls generated from the mobile phone of the complainant is not BSNL mobile connection and that it is not possible to verify the same. The Ops are liable for refund of excess bill of Rs.3,000/- from January, 2007 to April, 2007, apart from compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. OP.No.1 remained ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The disputed bills relate to the period of December, 2006 to March, 2007. The complaint is filed in the month of May, 2009 beyond the limitation period. All the bills of the complainant generated by the OP are totally computerized and they exhibit the exact calls consumed by him. There is every possibility to the complainant his friends relatives and family members of making calls Mobile No. 9989641737 does not belong to the net work of the Ops organization. The Ops never charged the calls which are not generated from the complainants telephone. The complainant is provided dynamic locking facility to avoid misuse of the telephone. There is no negligence on the part of the Ops while preparing bills. The OP has not charged unconnected calls to the complainants telephone number. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The Ops are not liable for refund of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. The complaint is filed to gain wrongfully. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the OP.No.2 Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.
5. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
- whether the complaint is bared by time.
- To what relief?
6. Heard both sides.
7. Points No.1 to 3 :- Admittedly the complainant is having BSNL land connection under phone No.232149. It is the case of the complainant that no calls were made to the Mobile No. 9989641737 during January, 2007 to April, 2007 through his land line number, that he was forced to pay the amount for the calls which were not made by him and family members and that he gave several representations to the Ops to verify the same. The complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 copies of the representations given by him. OP.No.2 gave a reply Ex.A4 dated 14-02-2008 stating that the mobile No. 9989641737 to which calls generated from the land line is not BSNL mobile connection and hence it is not possible to verify the same.
8. It is the contention of the OP.No.2 that they gave computerized bill to the complainant showing the particulars of the calls generated from the land line of the complainant and that there was no possibility no tamper the land phone of the complainant by the department staff. OP.No.2 filed Ex.B1 showing the particulars of the calls generated from the land line of the complainant from December, 2006 to March, 2007. As seen from Ex.B1 it is very clear that from December, 2006 to March, 2007 number of calls generated from the land line of the complainant to the mobile No. 9989641737. Admittedly the land connection of the complainant is under his control. Admittedly it is having a dynamic locking facility. Had the complainant entertained any doubt regarding the calls generated from his land line he must have put his land set under lock. Admittedly the complainant and his family members used the land phone during the period from December, 2006 to March, 2007. Merely because the Ops did not trace the person who got mobile connection No. 9989641737 it can not be said that the staff members of the Ops made the said calls to the mobile set through the land line of the complainant. Except the oath against oath there is no satisfactory material on record to show that the complainant and his family members did not telephone to mobile No. 9989641737 from the land line of the complainant. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint questioning the telephone bill issued by the department . In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in AIR 2010.S.C.90 (General Manager, Telecom Vs M.Krishnan and Anr where in the Apix court held “when there is a special remedy provided under Sec. 7 .B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills , then the remedy under the C.P.Act is by implication barred”. In the present case the complainant is questioning the telephone bill issued by the telephone department. In the light of the observation made by the Honurable Supreme Court , we have no hesitation to held that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.No.2 that the complaint is bared by time. The complainant is disputing the calls found in the bills from December, 2006 to March, 2007. The complainant must have received the telephone bill for the month of March, 2007 in the month of April, 2007. The complaint is filed on 06-04-2009 within two years from the date of the receipt of the March, 2007 bill. Therefore the contention of the OP that the complaint is bared by time cannot be accepted.
10. Point No.4: In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 02nd day of September, 2010.
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Representation letter dt. 28-12-2007 made by the complainant to OP’s
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Representation letter dt. 12-06-2008 made by the complainant to OP’s.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of Representation letter dt. 21-05-2008. made by the complainant to OP’s.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of reply received from OP-1 dt.14-02-2008
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice dt.09-03-2009.
Ex.A6. 2 Postal receipts
Ex.A7. 2 postal acknowledgements
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Activated bills for the month of December, 2006 to March, 2007.
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
