Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant Prem Nair, Thundiyil Veedu, Aruvappulam.P.O. has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant is a subscriber of BSNL under Murinjakal exchange and his telephone number is 2397 012 and he had paid all the regular bills issued by the opposite parties and all the prior telephone bills were less than Rs.1,250/-. On 7.8.03 the opposite parties have issued a bill amounting to Rs.8,909/- and directing him to pay the amount on or before 29.8.03, otherwise the bill amount will be Rs.9,109/- including surcharge and if the bill amount is not paid within the prescribed time, the telephone connection will be disconnected. The complainant did not paid the bill amount demanded by the opposite parties as the bill is excess and is illegal and opposite parties disconnected the outgoing service from his telephone connection. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite parties have misused his telephone and thereby the meter reading increased and they have issued this excess bill on the basis of the said meter reading. The issuance of excess bill and the disconnection of outgoing service is a deficiency in service and due to the said deficiency he sustained mental agony and other inconveniences. Therefore he filed this complaint for setting aside the excess bill issued by the opposite parties along with compensation and cost. It is also prayed to issue a direction not to disconnect his telephone connection. The complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version for himself and on behalf of the all opposite parties with the following contentions. The telephone connection to the complainant was provided through underground cable to the complainant’s premises so as to avoid misuse by outsiders. On 19.6.03 on the request of the complainant the STD and ISD facility was disconnected. It may be due to the knowledge of the complainant that the calls are going from his connection without his knowledge. Further contention is that if the telephone is dynamically locked no one can make a call from that telephone. The bill issued on 7.8.03 is the charges of the actual calls originated from the complainant’s connection and the complainant is liable to pay the amount. Further contented that the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on telephone bills and is not maintainable before the Forum. 4. Points for consideration in this complaint are following:- (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief & Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant, who has been examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. Authorised officer of opposite parties cross-examined PW1. Opposite parties have no oral evidence. Ext.B1 was marked at the time of hearing. After closure of evidence, both sides heard. 6. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite party and the dispute between the complainant and opposite party is a consumer dispute and is maintainable before the Forum. 7. Points 2 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant has been examined as PW1. At the time of examination the disputed bill dated 7.8.03 for Rs.8,909/- is marked as Ext.A1 and he deposed that against Ext.A1 bill he had made a complaint before the opposite parties and opposite parties had not taken any action in his complaint. The statement showing bills issued and payments recived issued by the opposite parties for the period from April 2002 to March 2003 produced is marked as Ext.A2. The bill issued on 7.10.03 for Rs.4,956/- by opposite parties produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A3. The bill dated 7.4.04 for Rs.238/- issued by the opposite parties produced is marked as Ext.A4. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 8. PW1 has been cross-examined by the authorised representative of opposite parties. At the time of cross-examination, PW1 stated that on 16.9.03 he requested for disconnecting STD and ISD facility because of the discontinuation of his business due to his illness and he added that at the time of availing this facilities he had used the locking facility. 9. There is no oral evidence from the side of opposite parties. The detailed bill for the period from 1.8.03 to 30.9.03 produced is marked as Ext.B1 at the time of hearing. 10. The complainant’s case is that his prior telephone bills are around Rs.1,250/- while so, on 7.8.03 opposite parties issued a telephone bill amounting to Rs.8,909/- and he did not paid the bill amount and opposite parties disconnected the telephone connection. He made a complaint to opposite parties to redress his grievances but they did not take any action and his allegation is that the excess bill is due to the malpractices done by the opposite parties in his telephone connection and the issuance of Ext.A1 bill and the disconnection of his telephone connection based on the non-payment of an illegal bill is a deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable for it. 11. The opposite parties contended that they provided underground cable to subscriber’s premises to avoid misuse by outsiders and the bill issued is the actual charges of the calls made by the complainant. 12. On a perusal of the evidence in this case Ext.A2, the statement of bills issued and the payments received for the period from April 2002 to March 2003 shows that the complainant’s telephone bills have not exceeded Rs.1,298/-. Ext.B1 call details shows that frequent calls were made to one number. The opposite parties have produced only the call details of a particular number and there is no details regarding any other numbers called from the complainant’s telephone what prevented them to produce it? So Ext.B1 is not a conclusive document as it does not shows the entire call details. Moreover, opposite parties have not produced the call details of the disputed bill. Opposite parties have the liability to prove that the Ext.A1 bill was issued on the basis of the actual calls made from the complainant’s telephone. But they failed to prove that aspect. In the circumstances, the issuance of Ext.A1 bill and the disconnection of the telephone is a clear deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable for their deficiency. There is no justification for Ext.A1 bill and it is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby Ext.A1 bill dated 7.8.03 issued by the opposite party is hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to issue a revised bill on the basis of the average of 3 regular bills issued prior to Ext.A1 bill. Opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to reconnect the complainant’s connection, if disconnected, on getting the payment of the revised bill. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2008. C. Lathika Bhai, (Member). Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Prem Nair Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Bill dated 7.8.03 for Rs.8,909/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Statement of bills issued and payments received for the year 2002-03 (April 2002 - March 2003) issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Bill dated 7.10.03 for Rs.4,956/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Bill dated 7.4.04 for Rs.238/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Call details issued by the opposite party to the complainant. | 
