Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant Sumangala. D., Thundivilayil, Aruvappulam has filed this complaint against the opposite party for a relief from this Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant is a subscriber at Murinjakal Telephone Exchange of BSNL and her Telephone number was 2396312. She had paid all regular bills issued by the opposite parties and all are less than Rs.600/-. On 7.8.03, the opposite parties had issued a telephone bill amounting to Rs.24,789/- to the complainant and demanded to pay the amount on or before 30.8.03. Otherwise the bill amount will be Rs.25,789/- including surcharge of Rs.1,000/-. The complainant did not paid the bill amount and consequent to the non-payment complainant’s telephone connection was disconnected by the opposite parties. After disconnecting the telephone the opposite parties issued two more bills amounting Rs.129/- each being the normal rent. The complainant’s allegation is that the excess bill is due to the malpractices done by the opposite parties and she is not liable to pay the bills issued by the opposite parties. Due to the disconnection of the telephone, the complainant had sustained mental agony and other inconveniences and thereby opposite parties had committed deficiency of service and therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for setting aside the bill dated 7.8.03 and for restoring the telephone connection and with compensation and cost. 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version for and on behalf of the opposite parties with the following contentions:- The opposite parties had admitted that they have provided the telephone connection to the complainant with STD and ISD facilities along with dynamic locking facilities. Nobody can make a call from a telephone, which is dynamically locked. The complainant had barred STD and ISD facility of her connection due to the fear of misuse of telephone. From this telephone 509 units of calls were made to one mobile number from 20.8.03 to 31.8.03. Frequent calls to the mobile telephone are to be counted in view of revised pulse rate. Therefore, complainant is liable to pay the disputed bill amount and the bill was issued for the actual calls made by the complainant. 4. Another contention raised by the opposite party is that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. The points for consideration in this complaint are: (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? 6. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. There is no oral evidence for the opposite parties, but PW1 was cross examined by the authorised officer of the opposite paries. Ext.B1 and B1(a) were marked at the time of hearing. After closing the evidence, both sides heard. 7. Point No.1:- The complainant availed service from the opposite parties and hence the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and the dispute herein is a consumer dispute. Moreover, Consumer Protection Act is an additional enactment for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers, and is not derogative of the provisions for any other law. So the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 8. Point No.2 & 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1. PW1 deposed that her complaint is for setting aside the excess bill issued by the opposite parties and for restoring the telephone connection. The excess bill dated 7.8.03 amounting to Rs.24,789/- issued by the opposite parties has been produced is marked as Ext.A1. The statement relating to the payment of telephone charges of the complainant’s connection from April 2002 to March 2003 issued by the 3rd opposite party produced is marked as Ext.A2. The call details given by the opposite parties for a period from 1.5.03 to 31.7.03 produced is marked as Ext.A3. The opposite parties have issued two bills for demanding the payment of rent, these two bills are one and the same. Both bills dated 7.1.04 amounting to Rs.119/- produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A4 and A4(a). The bill dated 7.10.03 for Rs.4,015/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant has been produced is marked as Ext.A5. The complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 9. PW1 has been cross-examined by the authorised representative of opposite party. At the time of cross-examination she stated that she does not know who is the subscriber of mobile No.9847373525 shown in the call details. 10. There is no oral evidence from the side of the opposite parties. The call details of the complainant’s telephone connection for the period from 1.8.03 to 30.9.03 has been produced by the opposite parties at the time of hearing is marked as Ext.B1. 11. On going through the evidence in this case Ext.A2 statement shows that the complainant’s prior telephone bills were below Rs.400/-. Ext.A3 call details shows that a call was made on 5.5.03 at 20.55 to 04936240907 the call duration shown as 35 seconds and units recorded for the said call is 3. The next entry in Ext.A3 is that the same number was called again at the same time with duration of 24 seconds with one unit. Is it possible to make two calls at one time? So the genuineness of Ext.A3 is doubtful. Ext.A3 and B1 does not shows the call details in full for the deputed period. What prevented opposite parties to furnish the complete call details. As per the call details in Ext.B1, the complainant had made calls only to a single mobile number. Opposite parties have the liability to prove that Ext.A1 bill is genuine and is based on the calls originated from the complainant’s phone. But opposite parties have failed to prove this aspect. Moreover, opposite parties have internal instructions that if there is a sudden spurt in the number of calls being made in a telephone, the telephone department will be obliged to inform the user about this sudden spurt. In this case, there is no evidence to show that such information was given to the complainant. 12. In the reported case 2006(3)CPR 237(NC). National Commission held that non-compliance of its own instructions on the subject of sudden spurt is a clear case of deficiency of service. 13. The Govt. of India has issued directions vide its order No.4-59/85 TR dated 9.4.1986 when there is a sudden spurt in the telephone call an investigation will have to be done by the Telephone department about the calls and subsequent excess bills. In this case no such investigation have been conducted by the opposite parties and opposite parties did not proved that Ext.A1 bill issued was for the actual calls originated from the complainant’s telephone. 14. In another reported case, 2002(2) CPR III (NC), National Commission held that “when there is a sudden spurt in billing cycle of Telephone bill and there is a complaint then investigation in terms of Govt. of India directions is necessary and failure will amount to deficiency in service”. 15. On the basis of the above said reported rulings and the aforesaid discussions, we find a clear deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties in issuing Ext.A1 bill and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the complaint is allowable with compensation and cost. 16. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby Ext.A1 bill issued by the opposite party is hereby set aside and opposite parties are directed to issue a revised bill in the place Ext.A1 bill on the basis of the complainant’s prior telephone bills, i.e. average of 3 prior bills and further directed to restore the telephone connection on getting the payment of the revised bills. Opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2008. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Sumangala Premkumar Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Telephone bill dated 7.8.2003 for Rs.25,789/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant: A2 : Statement of bills relating to the payment of telephone charges from April 2002 to March 2003. A3 : Call details for the period from 1.5.2003 to 31.7.2003. A4 : Telephone bill dated 7.1.2004 for Rs. 129/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A4(a) : Telephone bill dated 7.12004 for Rs. 129/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A5 : Telephone bill dated 7.10.2003 for Rs.4,115/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Details of STD calls for the period from 20.8.2003 to 31.8.2003. B1(a) : The relevant portion of Ext.B1 call details. (By Order) Senior Superintendent
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
