K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

   This complaint filed lby the complainant for quashing the  Telephone bill and other  reliefs.

  The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

  The complainant is a consumer of the first opp.party having telephone connection with No.ELM/2549643 and consumer No.67598320.  The complainant used to remit all the bills issued by the opp.parties.   The telephone was never misused from the inception of the phone.  The telephone charges has never exceeded  the minimum.  Even the free calls allowed were not being utilized.  The telephone has no facility such as STD and ISD  But had only the facility of the local calls.  While so on 16.1.2004 the complainant was issued with a bill for Rs.6802/- .  The complainant has not used the telephone for such an exorbitant amount.   The complainant thereupon to ascertain the genuines asked for the detailed printout.   But the same was not furnished to the complainant.     The opp.parties  have no  right to issue such an exorbitant bill in respect of a telephone for which there is only local call facility.  The complainant filed a complaint before the 3^rd opp.party requesting to conduct an enquiry with regard to the exorbitant  bill.   But the 3^rd opp.party did not conduct any enquiry.    On the other hand the opp.parties  informed the complainant that if the bill amount is not paid the telephone will be  disconnected.  The exorbitant bill happened to be  issued due to the defect in the meter and negligence of the opp.parties.  Hence the complaint.

     The opp.parties filed a joint  version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The  complaint is filed  with malafide intention.  It is admitted that the telephone No. ELM-2549643 of Elampalloor Telephone Exchange is provided to the complainant  and  it is further admitted that the subscriber used to pay the bills issued to her periodically.    It is also admitted that there is no STD/ISD in the telephone of the complainant.  But  she can make calls to places through out the State of Kerala by using 95 access code and  can make calls to mobile  phone  without availing STD facility.   The disputed bill dated 7.1.2004  was issued to be subscriber for an amount of Rs.6802/-  which includes surcharge of Rs.150/-for delayed payments.   The bill was for rental and call charges for 5249 call units metered for the period from 1.11.2003 to 31.12.2003.  The allegation of the complainant that the calls  were not made by her  is false.   The detailed bill print out issued by the 3^rd opp.party is for the STD/ISD  calls made from the telephone.  But as the subscriber’s telephone is not having such facility  no detailed  bill for the telephone could be generated .  But the details of calls made by the complainant by using 95 access code  during the disputed bill period could be generated by the Sub Divisional Engineer of Elampalloor Exchange with the help of metering software .  A copy of the detailed printout is produced herewith.  It is very clear from this print out that the complainant has made a lot of calls using 95 access codes and calls to mobile telephone numbers.  A number of calls made by using using 95 code are to  phone numbers  95484-2563047, 95484-2765209 and to mobile Nos. 9447265563, 9847288417, 9447472100 etc.    Most of such calls made are long duration calls.  The total calls billed in the bill dated 7.1.2004 also include local calls made by the subscriber within the local telephone system in addition to the 95 level calls and calls to mobile numbers.   The allegation that the  bill dated 7.1.2004 are not called lby the complainant is incorrect and hence denied.  The allegation contained in 4^th para of the complaint is incorrect and emphatically denied.  The detailed bill print out issued by the 3^rd opp.party from the district Office of BSNL at  Kollam is for the STD/ISD calls.  Since that facility was not available in the subscriber’s telephone no detailed bill could be generated and supplied  by the 3^rd opp.party.  The  allegation in the 5^th para  of the complaint are also false. The opp.parties had issued bill dated 7.1.2004  only for the calls made by the complainant.  After receipt of the complaint  from the complainant  those allegations have been investigated in detail thorough the Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Elampalloor.   The investigation  has revealed lthe following facts. [a] The telephone is provided from a modern electronic type exchange where metering is done through computer software.  The metering equipments were checked and found working OK. [b] During the disputed bill period no faults were reported.   The complainant is working as a Government servant.  The calls emanated from the telephone are made by her or the inmates of the houseA printout of 95 level calls and calls to mobile telephone   obtained from Elampalloor  telephone exchange reveals  that the complainant has made a lot of such calls during the disputed bill period .  There was no kind of threat from the opp.party as alleged in the 5^th para .   All the allegation in the said para are incorrect and hence denied.  The instrument is  in the sole possession and use of the subscriber.  The telephone traffic of a subscriber is basically as per the actual requirement and urgency of the situation which means that the originating traffic is within the absolute  control of the subscriber.   The reason for increase in usage of the telephone during a particular period is known only to the subscriber.  This  fact is also known to the complainant but  suppressing the facts, the complainant is making futile attempts to misguide this Forum.  The allegation  contained in 8^th para  is against facts and hence denied.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.

     Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

Points:

According to the complainant she is the subscriber of telephone No.ELM 2549643 and that the telephone charges in respect of her phone usually  was minimum but the opp.parties issued Ext.  P1  bill demanding an exorbitant  amount of    Rs.6802/- and that she had not made so much calls as shown in the bill.  It is her further case that though she requested the opp.parties to conduct an enquiry the opp.parties did not take any action which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.

          The case of the opp.parties is that Ext   P1  issued for the actual calls made by the complainant.   According to the opp.parties the complainants telephone is not provided with STD facility and therefore a detailed bill for the telephone could not be generated but the details of calls made by the complainant using 95 access code during the disputed period could be generated by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Elampalloor Exchange which is Ext. D1 series.  It is submitted by opp.parties that Ext.D1 series would show that the complainant had made a lot of calls using 95 access code and calls to certain mobile telephone numbers which is the reason for the excess billing.

          At the very outset it is to be stated that the opp.parties have not clarified as to whether the calls made using 95 access code  in an STD call or a local call.   Similar  is the case of Mobile telephone calls.  It is admitted that the complainant’s telephone does not have STD or ISD facility.  In version para 6 it is stated that in the case of a telephone having no facility for STD or ISD no detailed bill for the telephone could lbe generated by opp.party 3 .  If that be so, how Ext. D1 series was generated?  If details of calls made by the complainant using 95 access  code can be generated by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Elampalloor why he could not include the details of local calls in that bill as 95 access is not considered as STD calls?   There is no satisfactory explanation for the above questions.  It is well settled that a bill issued without showing the local calls cannot be relied on [ 2009 CPJ 345]

          The definite case of the complainant is that she has not made any calls to the number shown in Ext.D1 series but such calls were made by opp.parties’s men misusing the lines.   When a subscriber complains of excess billing it is the duty of the opp.parties to hold an enquiry in accordance with the relevant  provisions of the Mannual and circulars and convey the result of investigation to the complainant.  Absolutely no material was produced to show that result of such an enquiry was communicated to the complainant.   According to the opp.party they have conducted an investigation  on the basis of the complainant’s complaint through the Sub Divisional Engineer, Elampalloor.   Copies of the results of such investigation has been produced before the Forum.  But that report was not proved by examining the person who  conducted  the investigation.   There is  no endorsement in those reports to show that the  copy of the same was communicated to the complainant.   No other material  evidencing furnishing copy to complaint is also proved.   Merely because there is an averment that they have conducted an investigation and found everything correct is not the evidence which can have any value unless the person who had made the investigation  files an affidavit or  comes before court for oral deposition and reliance can be drawn from the decision  reported in II [1993] CPJ 875.  It is well settled  that  when opp.party fail to communicate the result the burden of proving that there is no fault  in the metering equipment particularly when STD facility is not there and that the lines were not misused and the bill issued is correct  is  on the opp.party which, in our view, the opp.party failed to discharge.

It is admitted that the metered calls of the complainants telephone during the last 7 bill period was very low.  When a sudden spurt in meter reading is found the departmental authorities must act in accordance with the circular keeping the telephone line under observation.  Here there is nothing in evidence to show that the prescribed procedure and guidelines are followed by the department which is nothing but deficiency in service 1 [2009] CPJ 345.  It  is also pertinent to point out that  no bill  exceeding the usual bill subsequent  to Ext.P1 is also produced by the opp.party and that aspect also would establish the case of the complainant.  As pointed  out earlier no credibility can be attributed to Ext.D1 series as the person who prepared the same was not examined.  For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and that Ext.P1 bill is liable to be quashed.  Points found accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed quashing the Ext.P1 bill directing the opp.parties to issue bill to the complainant taking average of last six months bill immediately preceding Ext.P1.  Complainant is also allowed Rs.2500/- towards compensation and costs.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

Dated this the    24^th      day of April, 2009-

                                                           I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. –  Thankamonyamma

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Bill dated 7.1.2004

P2. – Detailed printout application

P3. – Remitted bill receipts

P4. – bills

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – N. Chandrababu

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1.- Detailed printout bill

l: