SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) <br /> The complaint is filed for deficiency in service against the Postal Department for misappropriation of telephone bill paid by the complainant. <br /> <br /> The complainant is running a public telephone booth at Kambilikandam as telephone No.262742 of Parathodu Telephone Exchange. The complainant is paying the telephone bills without any default through the 4th opposite party. The 3rd opposite party was the Post Master at Parathodu Post Office during the period 2004-2005. As per the direction of the Ist opposite party the complainant was regularly paying the telephone bill through the 3rd opposite party's office. Though the complainant was paying the bill regularly, the 3rd opposite party did not remit the bill amount to the Ist opposite party in time. In January 2005 the complainant received bill No.10527991 for payment and the bill amount was Rs.2,247/-. The complainant paid the bill on 20.01.2005 vide receipt No.292 at the 3rd opposite party's office. It was verified by the employee of the Parathodu Exchange. On 25.09.2006 the Accounts Officer of the Ist opposite party issued a demand notice demanding the payment of Bill No.10527991. Immediately the complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party and also made a complaint to the 4th opposite party. On verification, in the counter foil of the complainant's payment dated 31.01.2005, instead of the amount Rs.2,247/- paid by the complainant, Rs.692/- is mentioned in the counter foil and the name of the remitter is another person. The 4th opposite party asked the complainant to send the receipt and bill to the Thodupuzha office and the complainant did the same. On enquiry the complainant was called on several times to the Munnar office of the 4th opposite party. From the enquiry, the complainant was understood that the 3rd opposite party has been misusing the bill amount paid by the complainant. In order to avoid the disciplinary and penal actions, the 3rd opposite party deliberately destroyed every petitions and receipt sent by the complainant. Hence the complainant got an agreement from the 3rd opposite party on 21.10.2006 showing that he had issued the receipt No.692 for the payment of the bill No.105279991. The 3rd opposite party on many occasions misused the telephone bill amount paid by the complainant and many times the complainant has to pay fine for the delayed payment, though the bills were paid in time. On 20.10.2006 the opposite party issued a demand notice. Since the complainant has already paid the bill he did not remit the same. On 14th January 2007 the 2nd opposite party disconnected the telephone of the complainant. The complainant's brother went several times to Munnar and Thodupuzha in order to clear the dispute. Several times the complainant has to close the telephone booth. Hence the complainant's income from the booth was adversely affected. This also caused severe hardships and much loss to the complainant. All these things are happened due to the unscrupulous acts of the 3rd opposite party and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. So the complaint is filed for getting compensation of Rs.25,000/- against the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a written version and it is admitted that the complainant was conducting an STD booth as No. 262742 from Parathodu Telephone Exchange. Public telephone was provided on 30.09.1999. The bills in respect of the STD PTs were issued fortnightly. The payment of the telephone bills are accepted in Parathodu Post Office. The complainant was also paying the bill through the Parathodu Post Office and the complainant has defaulted the payments many a time as is evident from the records. The payment in respect of Bill No.10527991 for the period 1.01.2005 to 16.01.2005 amounting to Rs.2,177/- has not been received by the BSNL. The payment date was on 29.01.005 and the complainant has to pay the bill by the due date. Since the payment particulars were not received, the Officer-in-charge of Telephone Exchange, Parathodu contacted the complainant through phone and enquired about payment details and the complainant informed that the bill has been paid on 31.01.2005, vide receipt No.292 of Parathodu Post Office. Believing the words of the complainant the STD PT was not disconnected. The complainant's submission that the bill was paid on 20.01.2005 was false. The complainant has not presented the payment particulars at Parathodu Exchange, but informed on enquiry from the exchange that the bill was paid on 10.01.2005 vide receipt No.292. But since the payment was not received by BSNL, the same was mentioned in the next bill onwards. But the complainant has not made the payment. The daily list from the Post Office showing the receipt of payments for the period 30.01.2005 to 1.02.2005 and also consolidated monthly list sent from the Parathodu Post Office were perused. But in none of the records, payment of the disputed bill No.105279991 was shown. So the disconnection notice was issued for the disconnection of PT and disconnected on 14.01.2007 after intimating the complainant. So there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.<br /> <br /> 3. The 3rd opposite party was called and made exparte. No written version was filed.<br /> <br /> 4. The 4th opposite party filed a written version and admitted that a complaint was given by the complainant in his office on 10.10.2006. But the complainant had not enclosed a copy of receipt issued by the Parathodu Post Office along with the complaint. He was asked to submit a copy or original receipt necessary for enquiry. But the complainant has not forwarded the receipt till date. However an enquiry was ordered on receipt of the complaint and enquiry at Parathodu Post Office revealed that no such receipt No.292 was issued from the Parathodu Post Office on 28.01.2005. It has also been found that only receipt upto No.237 was issued on 28.01.2005 and the receipt No.292 was issued for Rs,252/- in respect of phone No.262208 on 1.02.2005. During enquiry it was also been revealed on behalf of the complainant Sri.James.T.I, his brother Sri.Prasad.T.I has lodged the complaint at the office of Superintendent of Post Offices, since he has been running the telephone booth in the name of his brother Sri.James.T.I. Since the complainant's brother has not availed any service of the Post Office he cannot be considered as a consumer. But in the statement of the complainant before the enquiry officer, SDI(Postal), Munnar Sub Division, the complainant has stated that he had submitted a receipt and bill at TRA Unit, Thodupuzha along with his complaint. Since the complainant has not submitted the postal receipt for enquiry as required by the office of the Postal Superintendent till date, the same cannot be treated as genuine. So the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 6. Complainant's brother was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 7. The POINT :- The telephone bills of the complainant's telephone both No.262742 are paying regularly through Parathodu Post Office. Bill No.10527991 dated 20.01.2005 of Rs.2,247/- which is of the month of January was paid by the complainant in the same Post Office on 31.01.2005 by his brother. Receipt No.292 was issued for the same by the opposite party. But the amount was misappropriated by the 3rd opposite party. The bill amount was not disbursed at the office of the Ist opposite party or the 2nd opposite party and so they have disconnected the complainant's telephone. Complainant gave several complaints before the office of 4th opposite party for the same. The receipt of the bill was sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Thodupuzha. Ext.P1 is the letter written by the 3rd opposite party in stamp paper of Rs.50/- stating that the telephone bill of the complainant dated 20.01.2005 for Rs.2,177/- was paid by complainant's brother in his office as receipt No.292, which is duly signed by 3rd opposite party with one witness. Ext.P2 is the letter from Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Munnar stating the details of the 4 bills paid by the complainant's brother for this telephone No.262742. They are all of the disputed month. Ext.P3 is the letter written by Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division stating that they have received the complaint from the part of the complainant and they requested to produce copy of the telephone bill and the receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party. As per the evidence of PW1 who is the brother of the complainant and the Exts.P1 to P3, it seems that the complainant has paid the telephone bill. But the 3rd opposite party has misappropriated the amount paid. He deposed that opposite party No.3 has done the misappropriation. No relief is sought against Opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant. Opposite party 4 was present at the time of evidence, but not cross examined the PW1. It is very clear that the amount paid by the complainant was misappropriated by the 3rd opposite party. The telephone connection of the complainant's telephone booth was disconnected and thus a heavy loss was caused to him. He gave several complaints to Opposite parties 1 to 4 and so he lost time and expenses. 4th Opposite party argued that Opposite party No.3 has done the same personally. So no deficiency in the part of Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. The 3rd opposite party is personally liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation as claimed by the petitioner.<br /> <br /> As a result the petition allowed. The 3rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of August, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />