CC Filed on 26.12.2008<br /> Disposed on 28.07.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 28th day of July 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 129/2008<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Chikkabyatappa,<br /> S/o. Gangappa,<br /> Major,<br /> Madamuthanahalli Village,<br /> Hunukunda Post,<br /> Bangarpet Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The General Manager,<br /> Telecom Department,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Chief Accounts Officer,<br /> B.S.N.L. Office,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. G. Narayana,<br /> SDOT, B.S.N.L Office,<br /> K.G.F Range.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> 4. Sri. Shivappa,<br /> JE, B.S.N.L Office,<br /> Bangarpet. <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to reconnect complainant’s telephone bearing No. 256231 on the ground that tariff bill for Rs.2,157/- issued for the period from 01.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 is exorbitant, excessive and abnormal and to pay damages, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts may be stated as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant obtained telephone connection from OPs from March 2002 and was using the telephone and was paying the tariff bill issued to him from time to time. He alleged that his bimonthly average tariff bill was Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- in recent times, but for the period 01.03.2008 to 30.04.2008 he received bill for Rs.792/- which he paid reluctantly and subsequently he received bill for Rs.2,087/- for the period from 01.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 which is exorbitant, excessive and abnormal . It is alleged that the complainant gave written complaint to Bangarpet Office on 22.07.2008 and sent subsequent reminders, but he could not get justice from them. It is alleged that his telephone connection was disconnected subsequently for non-payment of bill amount. Such step was taken without giving proper reply to his representation.<br /> <br /> 3. The OPs appeared and filed their version. They contended that after receipt of the complaint regarding excess bill, they supplied the details of the call records and found that all the calls were originated from the telephone of complainant to different numbers and that there was no error in the bill. They contended that there was dynamic locking facility which prevents the unauthorized use of telephone of complainant and the complainant was advised to make use of that facility to avoid unauthorized use of telephone by third persons. They contended that the bill in question was computer generated bill and that it cannot be tampered. The substance of their contention is that there might have been unauthorized use of complainant’s telephone by some one without his notice, thereby the amount of bill was increased. They furnished the call details for the relevant period.<br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed the affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal) of OPs.<br /> <br /> 5. From the rival contentions the points that arise for our consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service <br /> by OPs?<br /> <br /> 2. If Point No.1 is held in affirmative to which reliefs<br /> the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 3. To what order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. After considering the pleadings and evidence on records and the submissions of parties our findings on the points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 and 2: After receipt of the bill for the period from 01.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 for Rs.2,087/- the complainant gave written representation on 22.07.2008 to Bangarpet Office. The OPs stated that in response to this letter the complainant was provided with detailed call list records and he was explained that all the calls were originated from his telephone. Furnishing of detailed call list records to complainant is not disputed in his evidence. Before us the details of call list is produced and a copy of it is also furnished to the complainant. It appears the complainant evenafter receiving call list in response to his letter dated 22.07.2008, went on making further complaints in writing and the OPs thereafter disconnected the installation for non-payment of bill amount. In the letter dated 05.08.2008 the complainant admits the receipt of call details furnished to him and states that majority of the calls shown in it were not connected to him or of his family members. The call detail list gives particulars regarding, to which telephone call was made and the particulars of the date, time and the period of the call made to that telephone. If some person either in the family or some outsider had used the telephone of complainant without his consent or knowledge, the bill for telephone charge would certainly be increased. The other possibility for abnormal bill is that there might be some tampering or mistake in generating the bill. <br /> <br /> It is not disputed that there are some other members in the house of complainant and they were using the said telephone. The complainant has not stated that he used dynamic locking facility or some other safeguard to prevent any third person from unauthorized use of telephone. The OPs have not produced any expert evidence to show that computerized billing system cannot be tampered or there cannot be any mistakes in the bill. Therefore we have to decide the case on probability. <br /> <br /> The consumption charge statements for pervious period from April 2002 to April 2008 show that for different periods the charge was varying between Rs.200/- to Rs.600/-. This shows that the use of telephone was not uniform during all the periods. The bill period from 01.03.2008 to 30.04.2008 was Rs.792/-. This bill was also paid by complainant without protest. As already noted for certain period the bill was for Rs.600/- and odd even in those months the bills were paid without protest. In such circumstances we hold that the bill for the period in question that is from 01.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 may be estimated at Rs.1,000- instead of Rs.2,087/-. We arrived to such finding because there are no clear evidence produced by either of the parties to establish their respective contentions. The complainant has not stated that he took precaution to prevent unauthorized use of his telephone. The OPs have not produced expert evidence or literature to show that there cannot be any error or tampering in case of computer generated bill. Therefore considering the maximum charge paid by complainant for certain period we hold that the bill for the period in question is to be estimated at Rs.1,000/-. In view of such finding we have to hold that if the complainant pays this amount, the OPs may be directed to restore the telephone connection. Hence Point No.1 and 2 are held accordingly. <br /> <br /> Point No. 3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed. The complainant shall pay Rs.1,000/- towards his telephone charge for the period from 01.05.2008 to 30.06.2008 instead of Rs.2,087/- claimed by OPs. If the complainant pays this amount within 30 days from the date of this order, the telephone connection shall be restored immediately. Parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 28th day of July 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />