Before the District Consumer Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, M,A., LL.B., Member
Monday the 11th day of April, 2005
C.D.No. 87/2004
B.Siva Lakshmi Reddy,
S/o. B.Siva Reddy,
Retired Head Clerk,
R/o Nandyal,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri B.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate
-Vs
1.The Sub-Divisional Officer
of phones, Telecom Department,
Nandyal. . . . Opposite party
2.The Accounts Officer,
Office of Telecom,
District Manager,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented by his
Counsel Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma,Advocate
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to restore the telephone connection of the complainant, the bill dt 1.6.1999 for Rs. 1,530/- said to be due by the complainant is illegal, Rs. 10,000/- as mental agony, cost of the complaint and any such 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 the complainant is a refined Judicial employee having telephone bearing No. 246242 at his residence. The complainant filed a complaint before the Hon ble District Forum in CD No. 188/2000 for refund of Rs. 5,000/- collected excessively by the opposite parties pending the case the opposite party paid Rs. 3,376/- to the complainant, thereafter, the was disposed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. During the pending of the said case the opposite parties filed their written version and at any stage they did not state that the complainant was due of any bill to the opposite parties. But to the dismay of the complainant the opposite parties issued a bill dt 6.6.2004, adding to the said bill in hand, writing the complainant is due to Rs. 1,530/- as on 1.6.1999. Before to this bill there was no demand by the opposite parties regarding the said due amount.
3. The complainant further submits that on 28.7.2004 the opposite party No.1 disconnected the telephone connection of the complainant without giving any reason or notice, thereafter on approach orally there was no response, being vexed the complainant got issued a legal notice dt 3.7.2004 to opposite party No.2, which was received by opposite party No.2 but there was no reply. Thereafter the opposite parties addressed a letter to the complainant dt 12.8.2004, demanding the complainant to pay Rs. 1,530/- for bill dt 1.6.1999. The opposite parties never demanded the said payment neither at the time of pending of CD No. 188/2000 or at the time of refunding of amount of Rs. 3,376/-. The said demand is made by the opposite parties only to take revenges as they were made to pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs and compensation in CD No. 188/2000. The above attitude of the opposite parties in issuing wrong arrear bill is amounting to deficiency of service and constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum.
4. The complainant in substantiation of his case relied on the documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.19 for its appreciation in this case, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernemnts and caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version and opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceeding and were made exparte.
6. The written version of opposite parties admits the complainant having a telephone bearing No. 246242 at Nandyal and the complainant filing a CD No. 188/2000 for refund of Rs. 5,000/- and admits refunding Rs.3,376/- to the complainant as balance amount from the date of installation up to bill dt 1.4.1999 and also admits payment of Rs. 1,000/- and 500/- as compensation and costs. In the care No.188/2000 the amounts payable related to bill dt 1.4.1999 only and not for subsequent period. It further submits that it issued a demand of out standing bill of Rs. 1,530/- as on 1.6.1999 in bill dt 6.6.2004 and thereafter, it disconnected the telephone connection of the complainant on 28.7.2004 for non payment of bill amount of Rs. 1,530/-, and also admits the complainant paying subsequent bills. The complainant also requested to furnish the payment particulars of the bill dt 1.6.1999 and the complainant did not furnishing the said particulars and on the other hand the complaint filed this case.
7. It further submits that due to introduction of new computer soft ware called “DOT SOFT “ in the month of November 1999 the department could not take up the process of disconnection for a period of about one year and even after such process could not implement in respect of complainant s telephone. As there was no possibility of carrying forward the said bill dt 1.6.1999 in the subsequent bills, since the software used by the opposite parties does not have such a provision, the said bill was not issued to the complainant and there was no willful nor any negligence on part of opposite parties in dis-connecting the telephone connection of the complainant for non payment of said bill dt 1.6.1999.
8. It lastly submits that the complainant s irresponsibility allegations on the part of opposite parties in making the said demand for Rs 1530/- was only to take revenge against the complainant is baseless on the other hand the complainant who is already emboldened by his success in the earlier case as filed is complaint only to harass the opposite parties and also to escape the payment of bill dt 1.6.1999. The opposite parties seeks of the dismissal of complaint with costs.
9. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitle alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
10. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging on the opposite parties for making a demand of bill dt 1.6.1999 for Rs. 1530/- after a lapse of five years in bill dt 6.6.2004, but as against to it the opposite parties in their written version alleges that the said due bill could not be issued in the subsequent bills as there was no possibility of carrying forward of the said bill dt 1.6.1999 in the subsequent bills, since the Software being used by the opposite parties does not have such a provision. The opposite parties in support of the supra stated contentions did not place any basis and source or any other supporting, relevant, cogent material on which the due bill of 1.6.1999 was found in bill dt 6.6.2004. In the absence of any such material, it is remaining hard to believe the bonafidies of the said claim made in 6.6.2004 bill as due pertain to 1.6.1999.
11. The opposite parties not even filed any relevant cogent material to the effect that after 1.6.1999 till 6.6.2004, there was no system for showing any out-standing dues of unpaid bills. Hence, there appears no justification in the conduct of opposite parties in making the alleged demand of 1.6.1999 bill about five years after its due and dis-connection of the service connection of the complainant on the said pretext of non payment of the said bill is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
12. The complainant brought on record Ex A.19, it envisages payment of Rs. 1,530/- on 20.9.2004 for telephone connection bearing No. 46242. In the light of the above exhibit as to the payment of said bill dt 1.6.1999, pendentilite of this case, the recovery of said amount in the light of the said above circumstances as is remaining unjustifiable. The said received amount by the opposite parties from the complainant is to be refunded.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed, the first relief sought by the complainant for restoration of the service connection, as the opposite parties, pendentilite of this case restored the service connection of the complainant, hence, no further relief could be granted on that count. The opposite parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,530/- to the complainant along with Rs.500/- as costs and Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant with a month of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 11th day of April, 2005
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of the Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 Complaint copy in CD No.188/2000 -Nil-
Ex A.2 Counter affidavit filed by OP No.1
In CD 188/2000.
Ex A.3 Objection statement filed by
OP No.3 in CD No. 188/2000.
Ex A.4 Order dt 5.12.2001 in CD No.188/2000
Of this Forum (certified copy.
Ex A.5 Bill dt 11.12.2003.
Ex A.6 Bill dt 6.2.2004.
Ex A.7 Bill dt 6.4.2004.
Ex A.8 Bill dt 6.6.2004.
Ex A.9 Bill dt 6.8.2004.
Ex A.10 Receipt No. 300221140
Dt 29.12.2003 for Rs.388/-.
Ex A.11 Receipt No. 318576
Dt 25.2.04 for Rs. 375/-.
Ex A.12 Receipt No. 28716 dt 22.4.04
For Rs.383/-.
Ex A.13 Receipt No. 3101164831
Dt 24.6.04 for Rs. 323/-.
Ex A.14 Letter dt 30.7.04 (legal notice)
Issued by complainant s counsel to the
Account s officer (TR), Kurnool.
Ex A.15 Postal Acknowledgement of
OP No.2 for receipt of Ex A.14.
Ex A.16 Letter dt 12.8.2004 from
General Manager, Telecom Dist,
Kurnool to the complainant.
Ex A.17 Certified copy of legal notice
Dt 21.6.2000 issued by complainant s
Counsel to General Manager, Telecom
Dist, Kurnool (2) Sub Divisional Officer
Telecom Dept, Nandyal (3) Accounts
Officer o/o Telecom Dist, Manager,
Kurnool.
Ex A.18 Certified copies of postal receipts,
And postal Acknowledgement of (1) General
Manager, Telecom, (2) Sub-Divisional Officer
(3) Accounts Officer Telecom Dist, Kurnool
for receipt of Ex A.17.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
