Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/117/2003

G.Kodanda Rami Reddy, S/o. G.Narayana Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K. Ravi Kumar

03 Nov 2004

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/117/2003
 
1. G.Kodanda Rami Reddy, S/o. G.Narayana Reddy,
H.o.3/123, Balaji Nagar, Kurnool
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The General Manager,
Telecom District, Bhupal Complex, Kurnool.
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

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

Wednesday the 3rd day November, 2004

C.D.No.117/2003

G.Kodanda Rami Reddy,

S/o. G.Narayana Reddy,

H.o.3/123,

Balaji Nagar,

Kurnool.                                            . . . Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                                His Sri K. Ravi Kumar

 

The General Manager,

Telecom District,

Bhupal Complex,

Kurnool.                                            . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel

                                                                Sri M.D.V Jogaiah Sarma

 

O R D E R

(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)

 

1.       This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P .Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to refund deposit amount of Rs.2,000/- with interest from the date of deposit, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs of the complaint.

 

2.       The gist of the complaint is that the complainant applied for new telephone connection by paying Rs.2,000/- as deposit and opposite parties installed telephone bearing No.49435 on 22.9.1999.  The complainant alleges that there is no proper check over the issuance of bills by the opposite parties and the complainant did not receive bill for the months of Sep-Oct 99 and on approach the opposite party asked to pay Rs.11,000/- and when requested for duplicate bill the opposite party  asked to pay Rs.394/- only and the complaint paid the said bill amount on 18.11.1999.  The bill for Nov –Dec 99 was issued for Rs.18,443/- and on approach the opposite party corrected the said bill to Rs.641/- only and the complainant paid the said amount on 4.2.2000.  The complainant received another bill for the months of Jan-Feb,2000 for Rs.7,744/- and the complainant thereafter approached concerned authorities stating that the bill issued to him included STD calls which are not concerned to him and made a written representation dt 16.3.2000 to the opposite party and there was no reply to the said representation.

 

3.       The complainants telephone was disconnected on 3.7.2000, prior to the date of disconnection all the bills were paid except March 2000 bill of Rs.7,744/- and the telephone was handed over to concerned authorities on 27.1.2001.  Inspite of several approaches the opposite party did not refund the deposit amount and sent a letter dt 26.3.2003 seeking payment of balance amount of Rs.27,533/- which the complainant is not liable to pay.

 

4.       The complainant further submits that the telephone was disconnected on 3.7.2000, but the opposite party issued bill for Rs 289/- vide bill dt 6.1.2001 including STD calls and another bill for Rs.756/- dt 6.5.2001 showing only rental charges.  Hence there is clear negligence and lapsive conduct on part of opposite parties in issuing these bills, hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dt 20.4.2003 seeking for refund of deposit amount of Rs.2,000/- along with interest and there was no reply from the opposite parties side.  Hence constrained to file this case in this Forum for redressal.

 

5.       The complainant in support of his case filed the following documents Viz (1) receipt No.161 dt 11.11.1999 issued by opposite party for Rs.394/- (2) bill dt 11.1.2000 issued by opposite party for Rs.18,843/- for the period from  1.11.1999 to 31.12.1999 (3) receipt No.229 dt 11.1.2000 issued by opposite party for Rs.641/- and (4) bill dt 6.3.2000 issued by opposite party for Rs.7,944/- for the period from 1.1.2000 to 29.2.2000, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint avernments and suitably replied to the interrogatories filed by the opposite party and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case.

 

6.       In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version.

 

7.       The written version of opposite party denies the complaint of complainant as not maintainable either in Law or on facts and submits the case of the complainant is not within the period of limitation as prescribed under C.P. Act, 1986.  The telephone was disconnected for non payment of dues on 3.7.2000 and the case is filed in August 2003, hence barred by the period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed.

 

8.       It admits the complainant applied for telephone and  the same was provided  bearing No.49435 to his house on 22.9.1999 and denies all other allegations.  It also admits that first bill dt 11.11.1999 for Rs.11,787/- was issued to complainant and on verification it was notice that OMR (Opening Meter Reading) was wrongly fed as zero  instead of 9076 and the complainant was issued a revised bill for Rs.394/- on 18.11.1999.  The second bill for Rs.18,443/- was issued to complainant and on approach by the complainant the opposite party issued a provisional bill for Rs.641/- keeping  the balance amount of Rs.18,202/- under dispute and the complainant paid the provisional bill amount of Rs.641/- and immediately referred the matter to “Excess Metering Complainants” (EMC) committee.  The EMC committee after through verification opined that the line, meter and allied equipment of the  complainants telephone have been functioning quite normally and no spurt was observed and the complainant is not eligible for any rebate in the disputed bill as there is no excessive metering and the same was informed to the complainant through its communication dt 16.5.2001.

 

9.       It further submits that another complaint was made by the complainant on 16.3.2000 for the bill dt 6.3.2000 for Rs.7,744/-which  the complaint alleges as  excessive and the opposite party  referred the complaint to “Excess Metering Complaints” committee and the committee opined that the line, meter and allied equipment of the complainants telephone is working properly and the complainant is not eligible for any rebate in the disputed bill and the same was informed to the complainant through its communication dt 22.7.2000 and requested to pay the  arrear bill amount.  It further submits that the complainant did not pay  arrears of Rs.18, 202/- for bill dt 11.1.2000, Rs.6,744/- for bill dt 6.3.2000, Rs.1,118/- for bill dt 6.5.2000 and Rs.28/- for bill dt 17.3.2003 totaling Rs. 26,092/-.  It further submits that the complainant paid Rs.2, 000/- as deposit while applying for new telephone, Rs.800/- was adjusted towards installation charges and remaining deposit amount of Rs.1,200/- was adjusted towards second bill stated supra.  On finalization of accounts the complainant was liable to pay Rs.26,092/- to the opposite party towards arrears of telephone bills and the disconnection of telephone is in accordance with Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, hence the question of refund of deposit amount of  RS.2,000/- does not arise as the same was already adjusted in the bills stated supra and the complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as there is no lapse of service on the part of the opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

10.     The opposite party in substantiation of its case filed the following documents Viz (1) attested copy of telephone bill dt 11.1.2000 (provisional bill) issued by opposite party (2) attested copy of letter dt 11.11.1999 addressed by complainant to opposite party (3) attested copy of letter dt 16.5.2001 addressed to the complainant (4) attested copy of letter dt 22.7.2000 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant and (5) attested copy of letter dt 16.3.2000 of complainant to opposite party besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.5 for its appreciation in this case and suitably replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.

 

  1. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitle alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party?:-

 

  1. The main contention of the complainant is that he paid Rs.2,000/- as deposit at the time of applying for new telephone connection, consequent to the disconnection of said telephone connection on 3.7.2000, telephone was handed over to opposite party on 27.1.20001 and inspite of several approaches and requests the opposite party did not refund the said deposit amount.  But as against to it the written version of opposite party in its avernments alleges that deposit amount of Rs.2,000/- paid by the complainant was adjusted to the dues payable by the complainant to the opposite party. It further says that Rs.800/- was adjusted towards installation charges and Rs.1,200/- was adjusted towards the due arrears of bills and hence, refund of deposit amount doesn’t arise.  In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the Ex A.2 &A.4 the complainant as was in due of bill amount and further no relevant cogent material is placed by the complainant not to adjust the deposit amount for due  arrear amount.  Subsequent to that, the said statement of the complainant on this aspect not only remains highly  inconsistence, but also thereby un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the complainant in that regard.  Therefore what follows is that the complainant was due of bill amount payable to the opposite party and the opposite party had made no mistake in adjusting the deposit amount to the balance bill amount.

 

  1. The facts borne in the above record is not denied by the complainant, hence from them it remains clear that the complainant was due in payment of arrears of bill amounts to the opposite party and opposite party rightly adjusted the deposit amount to the arrears of bill amount.

 

  1. The complainant except alleging seeking refund of deposit amount of Rs.2,000/-  and non cooperative conduct of opposite party in attending to the complaints made by the complainant and did not substantiate the bonafides and malafides of the opposite party by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material and further the complainant did not dispute the said bills as excessive and further sought for refund of deposit amount only and placed any cogent relevant material such as Telephone Rules or other administrative circulars of the opposite party  if any that the opposite party has no authority what so ever to adjust the deposit amount for due arrear amounts.  Hence there appears no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party in adjusting the deposit amount for the due arrear amounts.

 

  1. Hence in the circumstances discussed above as there is no deficiency of service established by the complainant on the part of the opposite party, therefore the complainant is not remaining entitle to any of the reliefs sought.  Hence the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.

 

16.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want merit and force.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open court this the 3rd day of November, 2004.

 

 

PRESIDENT

 

MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B.,]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B.,]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.