BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 26th day of July, 2007
C.C. No.07/2007
M.V.Nagaraju, S/o. M. Rangaiah Setty,
H.No. 18-95,Pathapeta, Dhone, Kurnool District. ... Complainant
-Vs-
1)The Senior Accounts Officer, (TR-III), O/o G.M.T.D.,
BSNL, Kurnool.
2) The Sub-Divisional and Engineer, (phones)
BSNL, Dhone. ...Opposite Parties
This Complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri.M.D.V.J. Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool, for opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the Complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act., 1986, seeking a direction on the Opposite Parties to cancel
the disputed bills dated 6.6.2006 for 5,253 and dated 29.6.2006 for Rs.5,201, to issue to fresh revised bills, to reconnect the disconnected telephone connection, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that he is having a telephone connection with its number 222382 since 15 years in his house. Since last 15 years he used to get bills between Rs.500/- to Rs.900/- only and the complainant was prompt in paying the bills. The complainant received two bills dated 6.6.2006 for Rs.5,253 and dated 29.9.2006 for Rs.5,201/- . The complainant alleges that the said disputed bills was on account of wrong billing and unauthorized using of complainant’s telephone by the employees of opposite parties. On 13.6.2006 the complainant lodged a complaint to opposite party No.2 requesting to reduce the two disputed bills. But the opposite party No.2, vide letter No.TDK/TR III EMC/DNC – 2223825 dated 4.8.2006 intimated the complainant that meter has been tested and found correct and directed to pay the two disputed bills. The complainant submits that there is no proper investigation and the issuing of excessive bills is without proper verification and the said amounts to deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Bill dated 6.8.2006 (2) letter dated 4.8.2006 of opposite party to the complaint’s letter dated 13.6.06 and (3) letter dated 24.10.2006 of opposite party addressed to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case in Law and facts and requiring the strict proof of the complaint avernments, submits that the complainant’s phone is provided with dynamic locking facility to avoid any misuse of the said telephone by others and the by their employees also and as per this records the complainant is not having a regular habit of using “Dynamic locking facility” after completion of his out-ward calls to avoid misuse of his telephone, and as per the records of locking and unlocking particulars, the complainant used the dynamic lock to his telephone only 2 times in the month of June, both times he locked his STD only and did not open the said lock in June and July. The complainant has not locked his telephone completely in the month of Aril 2006 and May 2006 during the disputed period and all the calls from the phone of the complainant occurred during its unlocking period itself. On 13.6.2006 the opposite party received a complaint from the complainant alleging excess bill for bill dated 6.6.2006 and the said complaint was referred to “Excess Metering complaint” , committee and the said committee observed that the telephone instrument, line, meter and equipment are found quite normally and there is no jumping in the meter of the complainant. The opposite party informed the same on 4.8.2006 to the complainant and requested to use Dynamic locking facility. It further submits that there is no lapse of service on part of opposite parties to the complainant and the bills of consumption are computer generated which reflects the calls actually consumed and there are no unauthorized calls. Hence, there is no lapse of service and the complainant is not entitled to any of reliefs claimed in the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz.,(1) particulars of Telephone bill during May 2005 to May 2006 (2) Details of out going calls during the month of April 2006 (3) ) Details of out going calls during the month of May 2006 (4) Details of out going calls during the month of June 2006 (5) Details of out going calls during the month of July 2006, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B.5 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and replied to the interrogatories of complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties :?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he received two excessive bills dated 6.6.2006 and 29.9.2006 and alleges his earlier months consumption to his phone was between Rs.500/- to 900/- only. The disputed bill Ex.A1 dated 6.6.2006 to which excess billing was alleged by the complainant, pertaing to the calls consumed during 1.6.2006 to 31.7.2006 . The opposite parties in their wriiten version avernments alleges that when a dynamic locking facility is provided to the complainant’s phone for avoiding any misuse or abuse of said phone of the complainant from others. It is for the complainant to avail said facility carefully and continuously without giving any room for any negligence on his part and if otherwise, he cannot blame for his careless acts which must have facilitated the abuse or misuse of complainant’s phone by un authorized to the no knowledge of the complainant. Hence, there is being any cogent material placed on record to believe the so called billing in Ex.A1 is excessive.
9. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the following decision on National Commission reported in III 2006 CPJ Page.368, it was held that, when there is a dispute regarding excessive telephone bill and in the matters of quantum dispute, jurisdiction lies with competent authority under Section 7 (B) of the Act of 1885, referring the matter to arbitrator.
10. The Andhra Pradesh State Commission held in an unreported decision in F.A.No.950/2004 against CD.No.311/02 of Kurnool Forum, directed the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator Under Section 7 (B) of Indian Telegraph Act to decide the disputes between the parties, pending decision of the arbitrator the opposite party is directed not to disconnect the telephone facility and directing the complainant to pay the bills regularly.
11. With the above position of Law of National Commission and our State Commission the decisions relied by the complainant have little relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
12. To sum up, the principle laid down by the National Commission (Supra) and A.P.State Commission (supra) is binding on this forum. As there was already a remedy available Under Section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act. The disputes between the parties pertains to excessive metering and the arbitrator can decide the dispute between the parties. In view of the above finding the matter has to go before an Arbitrator.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to appoint an arbitrator Under Section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act within a month of receipt of this order, to decide the disputes between the parties. Pending the decision of arbitrator the opposite parties are directed to reconnect the telephone connection to the complainant’s phone, and the complainant is directed to pay the bills regularly. In the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open bench the 26th day of July, 2006.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Bill , date 6.8.2006 for total amount of Rs.5,033/-
Ex. A2. Letter, dated 4.8.2006 of opposite party on the complainant
Date 13.6.2006.
Ex. A3. Letter , dated 24.10.2006 of opposite party addressed to
Complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Particulars of Telephoe bill during May, 2005 to May 2006.
Ex.B2 Details of outgoing calls during the month of April, 2006.
Ex.B3. Details of out going calls during the month of May, 2006
(No.in 2 papers)
Ex.B4. Details of out going calls during the month of June, 2006
(No.in 3 papers)
Ex.B5. Details of out going calls during the month of July, 2006 i.e., (1.7.2006 to 06.07.2007)
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.M.D.V.J. Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
