SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant is a farmer who is a subscriber of WLL phone No.228044 of Vandanmedu Exchange. The bill dated 7.03.2006 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.224/-. The bill dated 7.04.2006 was issued to him by opposite party demanding Rs.206/-. But on 7.05.2006 a bill was issued to him by opposite party demanding Rs.461/-. On 7.07.2006 a bill was issued to him demanding Rs.1,451/-. Since the bill appeared to be excessive he complained to the 3rd opposite party. On 7.08.2006 a bill was issued to him by opposite party demanding Rs.2,339/-. He complained to the opposite party regarding the excessive billing and requested for a detailed bill. When the detailed bill was obtained, it was found that lengthy calls were seen recorded to a number 09245876809. The complainant and his family have never called the said number. On 14.11.2006 a complaint was given to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Kumily. On 19.01.2007 a complaint was sent to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Vigilance, Ernakulam, but no action was taken. The opposite parties have not investigated the complaint of the complainant properly. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for refunding the excess amount collected and to pay compensation for deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes relating to the telephone billing. It is admitted that the telephone connection was provided to the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint with a request for detailed bill. The complaint perused in detail and it was found that one phone No.09245876809 was originated from this particular phone during the relevant period. The case was investigated by J.T.O, Vandanmedu and found that there was no misuse of telephone by outsiders. On enquiry, calls were originated from disputed number by the complainant to phone No.0924876809. Telephone No.228044 is allotted to the complainant from Vandanmedu Exchange. Telephone allotted to the complainant is working by using Wireless in Local Loop(WLL) Technology. The WLL phone was switching from WLLMSC exchange at Ernakulam. There is no other operation control from Vandanmedu or from any other place from Idukki District. When a WLL phone is installed in a house, the instrument is in the exclusive control of the inmates in the house. Hence it is clear that all the calls have been generated from his instrument. It was clearly shown that the complainant or the family members used to make calls to the aforesaid number. So the complainant was liable to pay the call charges made from his telephone. The telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the bills. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The basis of the complaint is that somebody tapped the telephone line leading to the receiver of the complainant from outside his house, made calls without his knowledge, the same have been recorded in his account and charges realised. The main reason alleged by the complaint is that a particular number 09245876809 recorded in the detailed call statement is not known to the complainant. The complainant as PW1 stated that the system of BSNL is not kept proper. He has produced Ext.P1(series), the bills from 7.03.2006 to 7.08.2006. Exts.P2 is the complaint sent to the Accounts Officer, Thodupuzha regarding the excessive billing and requested for a detailed bill. Ext.P3 is the complaint sent to the SDE, Kumily regarding the excessive billing. Ext.P4 is the complaint sent to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Vigilance, Ernakulam regarding the excessive billing and an investigation regarding the disputed No.09245876809. Ext.P5 is the calls detailed report. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is stated that his phone is a WLL phone ie, Wireless in Local Loop. He has three children. His daughter is a tailor. He was not locking the phone. Admittedly the bills were not paid and the telephone is under disconnection. According to the opposite party their investigation revealed that the disputed calls to telephone No.09245876809 were made from the complainant's telephone. Ext.R1 is the call detailed report got from the Vigilance.DW1, J.T.O, Kumily stated that 09245876809 is a mobile number was provided by private company. The disputed mobile number was not a BSNL number. His investigation revealed that there was no error in computer billing, no complaint in the line and the complainant has not reported the theft of his telephone instrument during the disputed period. In the cross-examination of DW1, it is stated that the WLL phone's exclusive control is of the inmates of the house only. The WLL phone was switching from WLL MSC Exchange at Ernakulam. His investigation did not give any indication to show that the line has been encroached up on or misused anybody. DW2, the Junior Telecom Officer, WLL MSC Exchange, Ernakulam, it is stated that the calls were originated from the complainant's WLL phone itself, there is no other operation control from Vandanmedu or from any other place in Idukki District. A telephone under WLL technology is turned to a particular frequency and no one can peep into that frequency so as to misuse the phone. So no deficiency in service can be found against the opposite parties so as to refund any excess amount from the bills and to make the opposite parties liable to compensate the complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008<br /> <br />