The Sub-Divisional Manager, Telecom Department (BSNL) V/S Bhusre Veerendra S/o. Mallappa Bhusre - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 8/06

Bhusre Veerendra S/o. Mallappa Bhusre - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sub-Divisional Manager, Telecom Department (BSNL) - Opp.Party(s)

Rajshekar

29 May 2006

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 8/06

Bhusre Veerendra S/o. Mallappa Bhusre						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Manager, Telecom Department (BSNL)						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant B.Veerendra against the Respondent Sub Divisional Manager Telecom Manvi.. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is a subscriber of his telephone installation bearing No. 281226 of Pothnal village Tq. Manvi and regularly pays the bills amount. The complainant along with other subscribers of Pothnal village gave a written complaint to the Respondent on 12-09-05 stating that the telephone lines used to be out of order/dead frequently in short intervals and in that period the lines were provided to the strangers which was well within the knowledge of Respondent. There was no such active response from the Respondent for the complaint made and due to which lot of in-convenience was caused to the complainant and other subscribers of Pothnal village. The telephone line of the complainant was dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 during that period the line was provided to another stranger due to which the complainant has got excess billing/over metering. He has paid the bill amount in the apprehension of disconnection. During the period of August 2005 the complainants sisters marriage was performed. Due to frequent disconnection/out of order the complainant could not make or receive calls from his line and thereby it caused lot of in-convenience to communicate his relatives/friends regarding the marriage ceremony. This act clearly depicts that the Respondents have not rendered proper service which amounts to deficiency in service. After submitting the written complainants dt. 12-09-05 and 24-09-05 the complainant has not found any actions taken by the Respondent nor he was intimated any thing regarding the complaints filed to the Respondent. Due to which the complainant was under impression that he has paid excess bills not from 12-09-05 but before previous bills, for that the complainant made another written letter dt. 29-09-05 stating that he is in need of abstract of bills from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05. Even for that the Respondent never took action. It clearly shows that the Respondent has willfully neglected the complaints filed and the application which clearly depicts deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for refund of (3) excess bills for Rs. 299/-, Rs. 399/- and Rs. 115/- excluding monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month as detailed in the complaint and for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss sustained by using telephone from outside the Telephone Booth for the period from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony inconvenience and harassment in all Rs. 35,811/-. He has also sought for awarding interest at 12% p.a. on the said amount along with cost of proceedings. 2. The Respondent Telecom Sub-Divisional Manvi has filed written statement contending that the telephone of the complainant was not disconnected for non-payment of the outstanding dues. But the line was got disturbed on road-widening works and drainage constructional work taken by KSHIP authority at Pothnal village service provided (by the Respondent) was prompt. Hence the allegation that no prompt service rendered by this Respondent is denied. It is further submitted that on the receipt of the complaint from subscribers on 12-09-05 the Respondent along with JTO Kowtal and lineman visited the spot and found that the residence of subscribers are situated on the other side of Sindhanoor-Manvi main Road, the 200 pair cable which was across the road near Pothnal bus-stand is frequently damaging by KSHIP authorities during road-widening works due to digging in-order to maintain the road standards after conducting soil tests by them. Even though the cable was laid as per the standard, it gets affected every time when the KSHIP authorities excavate the road. Every time the cable faults were promptly attended by the Respondent with minimum interruption and all the telephones were restored on 14-09-05 itself. Hence these allegations are totally false. When the entire telephones on the other side of the road were cut off totally, the question of providing line to any stranger on that side does not arise. Since experienced and skilled personnel were deployed to attend the cable fault, the misuse of any sort does not arise. The service were affected only for two-three days in the month of August and September 2005, but the bills are issued to the subscribers for every two months. As compared to the previous bills dt. 08-11-05 for the calls originated for the months of September & October 2005 is correct for the average calls. The bill dt. 08-09-05 for the calls originated for the months of July & August 2005 is slightly higher due to more calls originated by the complainant himself during the marriage function as stated by the complainant himself. Hence the question of excess billing and over meter reading for the period from July to October 2005 does not arise. The subscriber is paying the telephone bills at Post Office, Pothnal every time. The payment particulars are updated at TR section Raichur on receipt of payment particulars from the concerned Post Office. If there is delay in receiving the payment particulars from the Post Office, the subscriber PF No. will be included in the list for disconnection by TR section Raichur. The same thing was appended to the complainant. Even though the online cash counter facility was provided at Manvi for subscribers for making their payments where the payment particulars gets updated immediately, but the complainant not made use of it. Hence as per the instructions in the list of disconnection sent by AO TR Raichur, the complainant telephone gets disconnected. So the entire allegations are baseless. In the month of August 2005, the telephone No. 281226 is not faulty for entire month except for two days due to digging by KSHIP authorities for drainage construction works on the date of complaint itself the Respondent has clarified the doubts in that regard to excess billing issue. By seeing the detail call-report generated from the system the complainants father has fully satisfied and agreed. More over the detail-call-report for the months of August & September 2005 for the Telephone No. 281226 of the complainant was issued to the father of the complainant as per his request only. The complainants father himself agreed that all the calls originated were concerned with the complainant only. Hence the Respondent has not neglect in any sort of complaints and he has positively responded every time on the receipt of the complaint by providing prompt service. So there is no deficiency in service by the Respondent. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant B.Veerendra has filed his sworn-affidavit as evidence and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. The Respondent in rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of its sub-Divisional Manager BSNL, Manvi as evidence and has got marked one document at Ex.R-1. Ex.R-1(1) to R-1(3). 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent Telecom Sub-Divisional Manager, as alleged? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6 There is no dispute that the complainant is consumer of telephone connection for his Telephone No. 281226 in Pothnal village. The Respondents Sub-Divisional Manager Telecom Manvi, in the written statement at Para-2 has admitted that the complainants Telephone was not disconnected for non-payment of outstanding dues but the line was got disturbed on road-widening work and drainage constructional work taken up by KSHIP Authority at Pothnal village. Similarly in para-3 of the written statement among other things the Respondents has contended that the 200 pair cable which was across the road near Pothnal Bus-Stand was frequently damaging by KSHIP authorities during the road widening works. Even though the cable was laid as per the standard, it gets affected every time when the KSHIP authorities excavate the road. Every time the cable faults were promptly attended by the Respondents with minimum interruption and all the telephones were restored on 14-09-05 itself. So the averments at Para-2 & 3 of the written statement corroborates and supports the contention of the complaint at para- 4 & 5 that a written complaint was made by the subscribers of Pothnal village along with complainant to the Respondents on 12-09-05 alleging that the telephone line used to be out of Order/dead frequently in short intervals and his telephone line was dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and 20-09-05 & 24-09-05. 7. The complainant has produced written complaint dt. 12-09-05 by all subscribers of the village including himself at EX.P-1 and his own complaint dt. 24-09-05 at Ex.P-2 and written complaint filed by his father Mallappa dt. 29-09-05 at Ex.P-3. All the three letter complaints show the endorsement- acknowledgement by the Respondents in token of receipt of the said complaints on respective dates. The complainant has produced three Telephone bills for the month of May-June at Ex.P-4. Bill for the month of July-August at Ex.P-5 and another Telephone bill for the month of September 2005 at Ex.P-6. The Telephone bill at Ex.P-4 for the month of May-June 2005 shows 260 net chargeable calls. The telephone bill for the month of July & August 2005 at Ex.P-5 shows 365 net chargeable calls and telephone bill for the month of September 2005 at Ex.P-6 shows 113 net chargeable calls. In para-5 of his complaint he has contended that the telephone line was out of order/dead for the period from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and 20-04-05 to 29-04-05 and during that period his telephone line was provided to another stranger due to which the complainant has got excess billing over metering. In this regard he has relied on his written complaint at Ex.P-2. 8. The Respondents have not produced any material to show that they had taken any action on the complaints and intimation made to the subscribers of the village and the complainant in particular for the action taken or taken up by them on their complaints. But however the Respondent has produced one document Call Detail Record from July 2005 to October 2005 at Ex.R-1. They have also contended that on the date of complaint itself the Respondents has clarified the doubts in regard to excess billing and the complainants father by seeing detail call-report has fully satisfied and agreed. More-over the detail call report for the months August and September was issued to the complainants father as per his request and the complainants father himself agreed that all the calls originated were concerned with complainant only. A perusal of call-report for the month of August 2005 at Ex.R-1 (2) goes to show that no telephone charges are billed for the period from 27-08-05 to 30-08-05. However this Ex.R-1(2) shows the telephone charges billed for the calls made on 26-08-05 which interalia reads as under:- CALLING CALLED DATE TIME DURATION TGP(IC) UNIT TGP(OG) UNIT 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 08:54:19 0:04 10 1 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 08:54:52 1:09 10 2 281226 9845146949 26-08-05 08:56:58 4:00 10 6 281226 9880257186 26-08-05 09:02:30 2:15 10 4 281226 958535235639 26-08-05 11:09:12 7:40 10 3 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 16:16:37 1:06 10 2 281226 98451146949 26-08-05 16:20:00 0:09 10 1 281226 958535235639 26-08-05 17:34:57 3:13 10 2 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 18:06:26 0:04 10 1 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 18:06:38 0:24 10 1 281226 9880744043 26-08-05 18:28:20 1:34 10 3 From a close perusal and comparison of the telephone numbers as mentioned in the call detail records for the month of July to October 2005 under Ex.R-1 (1 to 4) we do not find the called telephone numbers dt. 26-08-05 on any other dates for the month of July to October 2005 vide Ex.R-1(1) to R-1(4). So we find substance in the contention of the complainant at para-5 and his complaint made to Respondent in this regard vide at Ex.P-2. Added to this the Respondent has not produced any material to show that they had investigated on the matter complained of vide Ex.P-2 with regard to called numbers on 26-08-05. Even there is no whisper by the Respondent that the telephone was not out of order on 26-08-05 and that Telephone line connection was not given to Shivarajappa Gouda by dis-connecting the Telephone line of the complainant and that complaint made in this regard at Ex.P-2 is not correct. So in the absence of any contra-evidence coming forth from the Respondents it follows that on 26-08-05 the complainants Telephone line was cut and provided to another stranger due to which the complainant got excess billing. However the call detail record for the month of September 2005 vide Ex.R-1(3) does not show call-detail from 19-09-05 to 26-09-05 hence the contention of the complainant that from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 his telephone line was dead and his line was provided to another stranger does not hold any water. So far as the contention of the complainant regarding excess billing from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05 as contended in para-8 of his complaint is concerned, the complainant except the bare contention has not substantiated by any material particulars. Of course he has produced by-monthly telephone bills for the period for May & June vide Ex.P-4, July & August 2005 under Ex.P-5 and for September 2005 vide Ex.P-6. But except these disputed bills he has not produced any earlier bills so as to know the excess billing made under these disputed bills. So the contention of the complainant regarding excess billing from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05 is of no avail to the complainant. 9. Therefore for the fore-going discussions and reasons it follows that the complainant has proved that his telephone line was out of order/dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 & from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 but his contention that during that period his line was provided to another stranger due to which he got excess billing over metering is not proved except for the disputed date on 26-08-05 vide Ex.R-1(2) as discussed supra. Therefore to this limited extent we find deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence this point No-1 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is only entitled for the refund of Telephone charges billed for called telephone dt. 26-08-05 as shown in the TGB Billing Record for August 2005 vide Ex.R-1(2) along with a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent is directed to refund the Telephone charges billed for called telephone numbers dt. 26-08-05 as detailed in TGB Billing Record for August 2005 at Ex.R-1(2). Respondent shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant B.Veerendra against the Respondent Sub Divisional Manager Telecom Manvi.. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is a subscriber of his telephone installation bearing No. 281226 of Pothnal village Tq. Manvi and regularly pays the bills amount. The complainant along with other subscribers of Pothnal village gave a written complaint to the Respondent on 12-09-05 stating that the telephone lines used to be out of order/dead frequently in short intervals and in that period the lines were provided to the strangers which was well within the knowledge of Respondent. There was no such active response from the Respondent for the complaint made and due to which lot of in-convenience was caused to the complainant and other subscribers of Pothnal village. The telephone line of the complainant was dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 during that period the line was provided to another stranger due to which the complainant has got excess billing/over metering. He has paid the bill amount in the apprehension of disconnection. During the period of August 2005 the complainants sisters marriage was performed. Due to frequent disconnection/out of order the complainant could not make or receive calls from his line and thereby it caused lot of in-convenience to communicate his relatives/friends regarding the marriage ceremony. This act clearly depicts that the Respondents have not rendered proper service which amounts to deficiency in service. After submitting the written complainants dt. 12-09-05 and 24-09-05 the complainant has not found any actions taken by the Respondent nor he was intimated any thing regarding the complaints filed to the Respondent. Due to which the complainant was under impression that he has paid excess bills not from 12-09-05 but before previous bills, for that the complainant made another written letter dt. 29-09-05 stating that he is in need of abstract of bills from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05. Even for that the Respondent never took action. It clearly shows that the Respondent has willfully neglected the complaints filed and the application which clearly depicts deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for refund of (3) excess bills for Rs. 299/-, Rs. 399/- and Rs. 115/- excluding monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month as detailed in the complaint and for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss sustained by using telephone from outside the Telephone Booth for the period from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony inconvenience and harassment in all Rs. 35,811/-. He has also sought for awarding interest at 12% p.a. on the said amount along with cost of proceedings. 2. The Respondent Telecom Sub-Divisional Manvi has filed written statement contending that the telephone of the complainant was not disconnected for non-payment of the outstanding dues. But the line was got disturbed on road-widening works and drainage constructional work taken by KSHIP authority at Pothnal village service provided (by the Respondent) was prompt. Hence the allegation that no prompt service rendered by this Respondent is denied. It is further submitted that on the receipt of the complaint from subscribers on 12-09-05 the Respondent along with JTO Kowtal and lineman visited the spot and found that the residence of subscribers are situated on the other side of Sindhanoor-Manvi main Road, the 200 pair cable which was across the road near Pothnal bus-stand is frequently damaging by KSHIP authorities during road-widening works due to digging in-order to maintain the road standards after conducting soil tests by them. Even though the cable was laid as per the standard, it gets affected every time when the KSHIP authorities excavate the road. Every time the cable faults were promptly attended by the Respondent with minimum interruption and all the telephones were restored on 14-09-05 itself. Hence these allegations are totally false. When the entire telephones on the other side of the road were cut off totally, the question of providing line to any stranger on that side does not arise. Since experienced and skilled personnel were deployed to attend the cable fault, the misuse of any sort does not arise. The service were affected only for two-three days in the month of August and September 2005, but the bills are issued to the subscribers for every two months. As compared to the previous bills dt. 08-11-05 for the calls originated for the months of September & October 2005 is correct for the average calls. The bill dt. 08-09-05 for the calls originated for the months of July & August 2005 is slightly higher due to more calls originated by the complainant himself during the marriage function as stated by the complainant himself. Hence the question of excess billing and over meter reading for the period from July to October 2005 does not arise. The subscriber is paying the telephone bills at Post Office, Pothnal every time. The payment particulars are updated at TR section Raichur on receipt of payment particulars from the concerned Post Office. If there is delay in receiving the payment particulars from the Post Office, the subscriber PF No. will be included in the list for disconnection by TR section Raichur. The same thing was appended to the complainant. Even though the online cash counter facility was provided at Manvi for subscribers for making their payments where the payment particulars gets updated immediately, but the complainant not made use of it. Hence as per the instructions in the list of disconnection sent by AO TR Raichur, the complainant telephone gets disconnected. So the entire allegations are baseless. In the month of August 2005, the telephone No. 281226 is not faulty for entire month except for two days due to digging by KSHIP authorities for drainage construction works on the date of complaint itself the Respondent has clarified the doubts in that regard to excess billing issue. By seeing the detail call-report generated from the system the complainants father has fully satisfied and agreed. More over the detail-call-report for the months of August & September 2005 for the Telephone No. 281226 of the complainant was issued to the father of the complainant as per his request only. The complainants father himself agreed that all the calls originated were concerned with the complainant only. Hence the Respondent has not neglect in any sort of complaints and he has positively responded every time on the receipt of the complaint by providing prompt service. So there is no deficiency in service by the Respondent. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant B.Veerendra has filed his sworn-affidavit as evidence and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. The Respondent in rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of its sub-Divisional Manager BSNL, Manvi as evidence and has got marked one document at Ex.R-1. Ex.R-1(1) to R-1(3). 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent Telecom Sub-Divisional Manager, as alleged? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6 There is no dispute that the complainant is consumer of telephone connection for his Telephone No. 281226 in Pothnal village. The Respondents Sub-Divisional Manager Telecom Manvi, in the written statement at Para-2 has admitted that the complainants Telephone was not disconnected for non-payment of outstanding dues but the line was got disturbed on road-widening work and drainage constructional work taken up by KSHIP Authority at Pothnal village. Similarly in para-3 of the written statement among other things the Respondents has contended that the 200 pair cable which was across the road near Pothnal Bus-Stand was frequently damaging by KSHIP authorities during the road widening works. Even though the cable was laid as per the standard, it gets affected every time when the KSHIP authorities excavate the road. Every time the cable faults were promptly attended by the Respondents with minimum interruption and all the telephones were restored on 14-09-05 itself. So the averments at Para-2 & 3 of the written statement corroborates and supports the contention of the complaint at para- 4 & 5 that a written complaint was made by the subscribers of Pothnal village along with complainant to the Respondents on 12-09-05 alleging that the telephone line used to be out of Order/dead frequently in short intervals and his telephone line was dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and 20-09-05 & 24-09-05. 7. The complainant has produced written complaint dt. 12-09-05 by all subscribers of the village including himself at EX.P-1 and his own complaint dt. 24-09-05 at Ex.P-2 and written complaint filed by his father Mallappa dt. 29-09-05 at Ex.P-3. All the three letter complaints show the endorsement- acknowledgement by the Respondents in token of receipt of the said complaints on respective dates. The complainant has produced three Telephone bills for the month of May-June at Ex.P-4. Bill for the month of July-August at Ex.P-5 and another Telephone bill for the month of September 2005 at Ex.P-6. The Telephone bill at Ex.P-4 for the month of May-June 2005 shows 260 net chargeable calls. The telephone bill for the month of July & August 2005 at Ex.P-5 shows 365 net chargeable calls and telephone bill for the month of September 2005 at Ex.P-6 shows 113 net chargeable calls. In para-5 of his complaint he has contended that the telephone line was out of order/dead for the period from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 and 20-04-05 to 29-04-05 and during that period his telephone line was provided to another stranger due to which the complainant has got excess billing over metering. In this regard he has relied on his written complaint at Ex.P-2. 8. The Respondents have not produced any material to show that they had taken any action on the complaints and intimation made to the subscribers of the village and the complainant in particular for the action taken or taken up by them on their complaints. But however the Respondent has produced one document Call Detail Record from July 2005 to October 2005 at Ex.R-1. They have also contended that on the date of complaint itself the Respondents has clarified the doubts in regard to excess billing and the complainants father by seeing detail call-report has fully satisfied and agreed. More-over the detail call report for the months August and September was issued to the complainants father as per his request and the complainants father himself agreed that all the calls originated were concerned with complainant only. A perusal of call-report for the month of August 2005 at Ex.R-1 (2) goes to show that no telephone charges are billed for the period from 27-08-05 to 30-08-05. However this Ex.R-1(2) shows the telephone charges billed for the calls made on 26-08-05 which interalia reads as under:- CALLING CALLED DATE TIME DURATION TGP(IC) UNIT TGP(OG) UNIT 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 08:54:19 0:04 10 1 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 08:54:52 1:09 10 2 281226 9845146949 26-08-05 08:56:58 4:00 10 6 281226 9880257186 26-08-05 09:02:30 2:15 10 4 281226 958535235639 26-08-05 11:09:12 7:40 10 3 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 16:16:37 1:06 10 2 281226 98451146949 26-08-05 16:20:00 0:09 10 1 281226 958535235639 26-08-05 17:34:57 3:13 10 2 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 18:06:26 0:04 10 1 281226 9448815549 26-08-05 18:06:38 0:24 10 1 281226 9880744043 26-08-05 18:28:20 1:34 10 3 From a close perusal and comparison of the telephone numbers as mentioned in the call detail records for the month of July to October 2005 under Ex.R-1 (1 to 4) we do not find the called telephone numbers dt. 26-08-05 on any other dates for the month of July to October 2005 vide Ex.R-1(1) to R-1(4). So we find substance in the contention of the complainant at para-5 and his complaint made to Respondent in this regard vide at Ex.P-2. Added to this the Respondent has not produced any material to show that they had investigated on the matter complained of vide Ex.P-2 with regard to called numbers on 26-08-05. Even there is no whisper by the Respondent that the telephone was not out of order on 26-08-05 and that Telephone line connection was not given to Shivarajappa Gouda by dis-connecting the Telephone line of the complainant and that complaint made in this regard at Ex.P-2 is not correct. So in the absence of any contra-evidence coming forth from the Respondents it follows that on 26-08-05 the complainants Telephone line was cut and provided to another stranger due to which the complainant got excess billing. However the call detail record for the month of September 2005 vide Ex.R-1(3) does not show call-detail from 19-09-05 to 26-09-05 hence the contention of the complainant that from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 his telephone line was dead and his line was provided to another stranger does not hold any water. So far as the contention of the complainant regarding excess billing from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05 as contended in para-8 of his complaint is concerned, the complainant except the bare contention has not substantiated by any material particulars. Of course he has produced by-monthly telephone bills for the period for May & June vide Ex.P-4, July & August 2005 under Ex.P-5 and for September 2005 vide Ex.P-6. But except these disputed bills he has not produced any earlier bills so as to know the excess billing made under these disputed bills. So the contention of the complainant regarding excess billing from 01-05-05 to 30-09-05 is of no avail to the complainant. 9. Therefore for the fore-going discussions and reasons it follows that the complainant has proved that his telephone line was out of order/dead from 26-08-05 to 30-08-05 & from 20-09-05 to 24-09-05 but his contention that during that period his line was provided to another stranger due to which he got excess billing over metering is not proved except for the disputed date on 26-08-05 vide Ex.R-1(2) as discussed supra. Therefore to this limited extent we find deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence this point No-1 is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is only entitled for the refund of Telephone charges billed for called telephone dt. 26-08-05 as shown in the TGB Billing Record for August 2005 vide Ex.R-1(2) along with a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent is directed to refund the Telephone charges billed for called telephone numbers dt. 26-08-05 as detailed in TGB Billing Record for August 2005 at Ex.R-1(2). Respondent shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.