CC Filed on 26.05.2011

         Disposed on 04.11.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.

Dated: 04^th  day of November 2011

PRESENT:

                        HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH,  President.

  HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA,  Member.

       HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA,  Member.

---

Consumer Complaint No. 134/2011

Between:

ORDER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.    The complainant contends that he was running a Public Telephone Booth of the Opposite Party-BSNL Company, due to the changed circumstances the business was not profitable, hence he closed that business.   At the time of taking the service for running that said Public Telephone Booth, the complainant had deposited Rs.8,000/- as security deposit.   After closing the business, the complainant asked the Opposite Party to refund that security deposit and at that time the officials of the Opposite Party told him that the telephone bills for the month of November 2006 and for the month of January 2007 are not paid by and after payment of the bills amount he is entitled for refund of the security deposit amount.   He contends that he has lost bills for having paid the telephone bills for the said months.    That all probability the Opposite Party could not have kept quiet without demanding that amount and could not have continued the service for that telephone booth.   It is stated that as and when the amount becomes due, the Opposite Party will cut the service if telephone bill amount is not paid on the same day.     The complainant had continued that business for two years and it could not have allowed him to continue the business for two years even though the bill amount was due.    The Opposite Party kept quiet for two years and only when he asked to disconnect the service and refund the security deposit they have raised such bills with ulterior motive.    The Opposite Party had not given any notice to him asking to pay the said bill amounts.    Under all these circumstances, the contention that he had not paid the bill amount for the month of November 2006 and January 2007 is not probable.    Hence he is entitled for refund of the entire deposit amount.   Hence this complaint is filed for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the deposit amount and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The Opposite Party has filed its version and contended that the BSNL has three tier mechanism to deal consumer grievances and the complainant has not used this mechanism to settle his grievance and has directly filed this complaint.    It is stated that the bank guarantee’s are collected only to settle the bills, if any bills are not paid after disconnection of telephone.   The telephone of the complainant was disconnected on 13.01.2007 for non-payment of the bill amount of Rs.3,175/-.    The Opposite Party could not realize the payment from the bank guarantee of the Vysya Bank Limited, Srinivasapura as it was valid only up to 10.12.2005.   The Opposite Party has intimated the complainant over phone to pay Rs.3,175/- and the bank guarantee will be returned after clearing the bills, but he has not complied the same.     Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The points that arise for our consideration are:

Point No.1:  Whether the complainant has proved the alleged

                       deficiency in service by the OP?

Point No.2:   To what order?

            4.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

1.      Negative

2.      As per final order.

R E A S O N S

5. POINT NO.1:   In our opinion the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in service for the following reasons:    There cannot be any dispute with regard to security deposit having been given for securing the due bill payment relating to the telephone bills.   When the complainant is alleging that he has paid the bill amount as and when the bills are issued, the burden of proof is on him to prove the same, but he has not produced any material to show that he has paid the disputed bills amounts for the month of November 2006 and January 2007.   Only on the probabilities of the case, he contends that Opposite Party could not have permitted him to continue the business for more than two years if he had not paid the disputed bills.    Hence he contends that the fact that he is allowed to continue business after the alleged bills became due itself goes to show that no such amount was due.   The circumstances that Opposite Party did not also make demand relating to it also probabilize the contentions of the complainant.    In our opinion these circumstances probabilizes the complainant’s contentions, if the complainant is permitted to continue that business for two years after the bills became due.   But the Opposite Party specifically states in its counter statement and the affidavit that the telephone was disconnected on 13.01.2007.   In this way according to the Opposite Party the telephone connection was disconnected immediately after the amount became due.   The complainant has filed his affidavit, but in his affidavit he does not deny that the telephone was disconnected in January 2007.   If the telephone was disconnected two years after January 2007 as stated by the complainant he ought to have specifically denied the allegation of the Opposite Party that it was disconnected in January 2007.    In the absence of any denial of this contention of the Opposite Party, in the affidavit of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the contention is not disputed about the date of disconnection.    When that is so, the contention of the complainant that evenafter the bill amount became due he was permitted to continue the business for two years is not acceptable.   The complainant could have produced any other material to show that he continued his business for two years after January 2007, such as the subsequent bills, payment receipts, etc., but no such material is produced.    When the Opposite Party specifically pleads that the telephone was disconnected in January 2007 it was the duty of the complainant to substantiate his contention that the service was continued for two years after January 2007, but he has not produced any such material.    In the absence of such material on record, we are of the opinion that the contention of the complainant that it was discontinued in January 2007 is acceptable.   Hence the probabilities pleaded by the complainant, to show that the said bills were not due, is not acceptable.   Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the Opposite Party.    Hence this point is held against the complainant. 

6.  POINT NO.2:   In view on the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    Hence we pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed.    No costs.

            Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 04^th day of November 2011.

T. NAGARAJA                        K.G.SHANTALA            T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH  

   MEMBER                                  MEMBER                              PRESIDENT