DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 27th day of November 2008.<br /> <br /> Present : Smt. H. Seena, President<br /> : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)<br /> : Smt.A.K. Bhanumathi (Member) <br /> C.C.No.25/2007<br /> <br /> Beepathuma<br /> W/o. Ibrahim<br /> Kuriyallur House<br /> Pothundy P.O<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (Advocate Joy Kanhirathinchalil)<br /> V/s<br /> 1. The Junior Telecom Officer<br /> Telecom, BSNL<br /> Telephone Exchange <br /> Nemmara <br /> Palakkad.<br /> <br /> 2. The General Manager<br /> Telecom, BSNL<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> By Smt. Seena.H., President<br /> The complainant is a telephone subscriber of Opposite party having a telephone connection bearing No. 244908. Normally her telephone bill always amounted only below Rs.600/-. But bi monthly telephone bill dated 07/10/2006 for the period from 01/08/2006 to 30/09/2006 amounted to Rs.2,908/-. According to the complainant, the bill is without any basis. The number of units of consumed calls shown in the telephone bill is not correct. The detailed bill dated 07/10/2006 clearly shows that she had made only 91 calls from her telephone during the disputed period. Subsequently the service to the complainants telephone was disconnected. According to the complainant, the act of not waiving the excess amount and disconnection of telephone service amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant prays before this forum for an order directing the opposite parties to waive Rs.2,688/-, the bill amount dated 07/10/2006 and to restore connection and to pay compensation.<br /> <br /> - 2 -<br /> Notice was served and the opposite party filed version with the following contentions.<br /> <br /> The allegation of excess metering by the complainant is without any basis. Call charges billed are for actual use. The detailed bill issued to the complainant was only for those calls that could be readily extracted from Nenmmara Telephone exchange at that time and did not contain all the calls made to other service provides net work due to technical reasons. Complaint was sent to field office for verification. Based on their report, there was no false metering or excess metering and the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,192/-.<br /> <br /> An interim application filed by complainant to restore the telephone connection was allowed.<br /> <br /> The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant and proof affidavit and Ext B1 & B2 on the side of the Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Matter was heard.<br /> <br /> Dispute of the complainant is regarding excess billing for telephone services . But the avernment of the opposite parties is that there is no excess billing and a detail bill is produced by the opposite party which is marked as Ext. B2. Since the complaint is regarding excessive billing, we are of the view that the matter shall be referred to arbitrator under Section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of November 2008.<br /> <br /> President (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD) <br /> <br /> 3 -<br /> Exhibits marked on the side Complainant<br /> A1 - Bill dated 07/10/2006<br /> A2 - Part bill issued by Opposite party dated 07/10/2006<br /> A3 - Copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before 2nd Opposite party dated<br /> 10/01/2007.<br /> A4 - Reply send by Opposite party dated 16/12/2006.<br /> A5 - Detailed bill received by the complainant 07/10/2006.<br /> A6 - Reply send by Accounts Officer dated 12/11/2006.<br /> A7 - Telephone bill dated 07/12/2006.<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side Complainant<br /> B1 - Final report dated 16/12/2006.<br /> B2 - Detailed call record.<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent