The Telecom District Manager, BSNL Raichur V/S Bheema Shankar S/o. Govindrao - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 92/06

Bheema Shankar S/o. Govindrao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Telecom District Manager, BSNL Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Rathod

07 Dec 2006

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 92/06

Bheema Shankar S/o. Govindrao						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Telecom District Manager, BSNL Raichur						...........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 Bheema Shankar against Telecom District Manager BSNL-Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is having a telephone bearing No. LGS 258193 installed by the Respondent he is using a telephone and he used to receive the nominal bills to the extent of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 604/- and at the maximum of Rs. 917/-. The said bills are produced with the complaint. Surprisingly the complainant received a bill No. TO80420067240 dt. 08-04-06 for Rs.3,140/-. So he applied to the Respondent for issue of detailed calls which was supplied. On perusal it is found that his telephone number was used to phone to Mobile No. 9945362322 about (10) times on 10-02-06 and (4) times to Mobile No. 9845713080 on 01-02-06 and (4) times to Mobile No. 9845933113 on 04-02-06 and for (8) times to Mobile No. 9845679730 on 19-02-06. He enquired by making telephone to the above said Mobiles and gathered their detailed address. But the said persons are not at all related and known to him or his family. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 for that the Respondent asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/-. The complainant has paid the said amount under protest vide Receipt No. 04106375 dt. 06-04-06. On 22-04-06 he has given a complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill for that there is no response from the Respondents. For issue of abnormal bill for Rs. 3,140/- and for enquiry with mobile holders he has suffered mental agony. Hence for all these reasons he has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and mental torture and refund of Rs. 917/- paid by him. 2. The Respondent Telecom District Manager Raichur has filed written statement contending that the bills of the telephone is depending upon using and talking of the phone with the others and accordingly the bill dt. 08-04-06 came to be issued. As such the complainant has to pay the bill amount to the Respondent. But instead of that the complainant has written a letter to the Respondent on 04-04-06. On perusing the Call-Billing-Records of the complainant it found that the complainant has not paid bill dt. 08-03-06 and 08-04-06 worth Rs. 2,915/- & 3,114/- respectively. The complainant used 2,196/- calls in-respect of bills dt. 08-03-06 and 2,313 calls in-respect of bill dt. 08-04-06. The Respondent has also enquired this matter in EMR pertaining to the telephone of the complainant wherein it also found that there is no fault during the disputed period. The consumer/complainant has used the phone recklessly with his family members, so the question of refund of bill amount and compensation does not arise. The complainant who is a public servant and police constable and moreover his family members used and made a maximum calls to different phone numbers. As such there is no fault with the Respondents nor with the meter. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief and Respondent has also filed his sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief. Both the parties have not chosen to cross-examine. On behalf of the complainant (10) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of Respondent (13) documents were got marked at Ex.R-1 to R-13. Both the counsel have filed written arguments. 4. Perused the records and written arguments. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents for receiving excess-billing as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is not in dispute that the complainant is having a telephone installation bearing No.LGS 258193. It is the case of the complainant that he used to receive the nominal bills to the extent of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 604/- and maximum of Rs. 917/-. But surprisingly he received a Bill No. TO80420067240 dt. 08-04-06 for Rs.3,140/-. So he applied to the Respondent Telecom for issue of detailed calls which was supplied and after verifying he found that his telephone number was used to phone to Mobile No. 9945362322 for about (10) calls on 10-02-06 and for (4) calls to Mobile No. 9845713080 on 01-02-06 and for (4) times to Mobile No. 9845933113 on 04-02-06 and for (8) calls to Mobile No. 9845679730 on 19-02-06. He enquired by making telephone to these Mobiles numbers and gathered their detailed address. But the said persons are not at all related or known to him or to his family. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 for that the Respondent asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/-. Accordingly he paid the said amount under protest vide Receipt No. 04106375 dt. 06-04-06. Later on 22-04-06 he gave an another complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill that there is no response from the Respondents. Hence the complaint. The complainant has reiterated the same in his sworn affidavit-evidence. 7. The Respondent Telecom has contended that telephone bill is depending upon using and talking of the phone with others and accordingly the telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 came to be issued and as such the complainant has to pay the bill amount to the Respondent. But instead of that the complainant has written a letter to the Respondent on 04-04-06. On perusing the Call-Billing-Records of the complainant it found that the complainant has not paid bill dt. 08-03-06 and 08-04-06 worth Rs. 2,915/- & 3,114/- respectively. The complainant has used 2,196 calls under the bill dt. 08-03-06 and 2,313 calls in-respect of bill dt. 08-04-06. This Respondent has also enquired this matter in EMR pertaining to the telephone of the complainant wherein it also found that there is no fault during the disputed period. The complainant and his family members have used the phone recklessly. The complainant who is a police constable is the public servant and his family members used and made a maximum calls to different phone numbers. As such there is no fault with the Respondents nor with the meter. So the question of refund of bill amount and compensation does not arise. The Respondent has reiterated the same in the affidavit-evidence. 8. The complainant has relied on in all (10) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. Ex.P-1 (1 to 6 ) are the six Receipts of telephone bill amount for Rs. 604/-, 917/-, 457/-, 655/-, 354/- & 453/- respectively. Ex.P-2 is the disputed bill for Rs. 3,140/-. Ex.P-3 is the complaint letter of the complainant dt. 28-03-06 addressed to the Telephone Engineer Exchange, Lingasugur. Ex.P-4 is the another complaint letter of the complainant dt. 22-04-06 addressed to the Telephone Engineer Exchange, Lingasugur. Both these complaints show acknowledgement endorsement receipt of the complaint by the Respondent on the very day of the two complaints. Ex.P-5 is telephone bill for Rs. 917/-. Ex.P-6 is the Normal Call Billing Records in-respect of complaint telephone No. 258193 issued by the Respondent Telecom. Ex.P-7 to P-10 are the four telephone bills issued for Rs. 604/-, 457/-, 354/-, 453/-. 9. The Respondent Telecom have relied on (13) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-13. Ex.R-1 is the Detail Call Report of telephone number of the complainant for the period from 01-02-06 to 28-02-06. Ex.R-2 is the Detail- Call Report for the period from 01-03-06 to 31-03-06. Ex.R-3 is Detail-Call Report for the period from 01-01-06 to 31-01-06. Ex.R-4 is the certified copy of the telephone bill dt. 08-03-06 for Rs. 2,985/- for the period from 01-02-06 to 28-02-06. Ex.R-5 is the Telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 for Rs. 3,070/- (3,140/- with sur-charge of Rs. 70/-) for the period from 01-03-06 to 31-03-06. Ex.R-6 is telephone bill dt. 08-02-06 for Rs. 604/- from 01-01-06 to 31-01-06. Ex.R-7 is telephone bill dt. 08-01-06 for Rs. 1,149/- for the period from 01-11-05 to 31-12-05. Ex.R-8 is the attested copy of Report on EMR for telephone bills dt. 08-12-05, 08-02-06 & 08-03-06 on the complaint of the complainant. Ex.R-9 is Fortnightly Meter Reading of the telephone of the complainant showing two spurts as stated in Ex.R-8. Ex.R-10 is the para-wise comments on the complaint filed in this Forum. Ex.R-11 is the Respondents letter dt. 04-04-06 addressed to the complainant stating the Receipt of his complaint dt. 04-04-06 and the matter is under investigation and further communication is awaited and asked him to make payment of provisional bill issued to him. Ex.R-12 is the copy of complaint of the complainant dt. 04-04-06. Ex.R-13 is the Normal Call Billing Records. 10. Now let us consider the earlier telephone bills preceding the disputed bill at Ex.P-2 for Rs. 3,140/- in the below table: Sl.No. Bill Date Period Net chargeable calls Bill amount (including sur-charge) (1) Ex.P-8 08-05-05 March & April 175 Rs. 467/- (2) Ex.P-9 08-10-05 September-2005 201 Rs. 364/- (3) Ex.P-10 08-11-05 October-2005 284 Rs. 463/- (4) Ex.R-7 08-01-06 Nov-December05 712 Rs. 1,149/- (5) Ex.R-6 08-02-06 January-2006 383 Rs. 604/- (6) Ex.R-4 08-03-06 February-2006 2146 Rs. 2,985/- (7) Ex.P-2/Ex.R-5 08-04-06 March-2006 2263 Rs. 3,140/- From a perusal of telephone bills as shown above it shows the Net chargeable calls are normal except for February and March 2006 vide Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 (Ex.P-2) which shows abnormal. It is the specific case of the complainant that after obtaining Telephone-Called-Sheets from the Respondent Office he noticed that on 10-02-06 about (10) calls were made from his telephone number to Mobile No. 9945362322, on 01-02-06 about (4) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845713080, on 04-02-06 about (4) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845933113, and on 19-02-06 about (8) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845679730. He enquired by making telephone to the above said mobiles and gathered their detailed address but the said persons are not at all either related to or known to him or to his family members. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 complaining the above facts for that the Respondent Office asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/- which he paid under protest vide Receipt No. 041016375 dt. 06-04-06. It is also his case that on 22-04-06 he gave another complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill, but there is no response from the Respondents. The complainant has produced the copy of first complaint dt. 28-03-06 at Ex.P-3 and copy of second complaint dt. 22-04-06 at Ex.P-4. Bill for Rs. 917/- at Ex.P-5 and Normal Call Billing Records for the month of February & March 2006 at Ex.P-6. From a perusal of this Normal Call Billing Records at Ex.P-6 we find the record of four mobiles Nos. on 01-02-06, 04-02-06 10-02-06 & 19-02-06 as contended in para-3 of his complaint. The Respondent Telecom have also produced Detailed-Call-Report for the month of January 2006 at Ex.R-3, for February 2006 at Ex.R-1, and for March 2006 at Ex.R-2. The copy of telephone bill dt. 08-03-06 for the month of February 2006 shows the bill charges of Rs. 2,985/- and copy of telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 for the month of March showing bill charges at Rs. 3,140/- (including sur-charges). 11. As seen earlier the above-referred table shows 175 minimum Net chargeable calls and 383 maximum Net chargeable-calls. But the Telephone bill for the month of February and March 2006 at Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 shows 2146 and 2263 Net chargeable calls respectively. This in-turn shows that the Net Chargeable Calls for the month of February and March 2006 is abnormal comparing to the telephone bills for the preceding period from January 2006 upto March 2005. The Respondent Telephone have contended that they enquired this matter in EMR and found that there is no fault during the disputed period but it was due to abnormal use of telephone by the complainant and his family members. As seen above the Report on EMR at Ex.R-8 and Fortnightly Meter Reading of the complainant phone at Ex.R-9 produced by Respondent shows that the telephone of the complainant is STD barred and working with dynamic locking facility and it was checked for ID & externally and found no fault. It noticed two spurts during the disputed period from 01-02-06 to 15-02-06 and from 16-03-06 to 31-03-06 and no fault found during the disputed period also. It is the specific case of the Respondent that the complainant or his family members have used telephone recklessly leading to abnormal chargeable calls and not for any fault which revealed from thorough checking. We find substance in the contention of the Respondent. It may be that the Net chargeable calls for the month of February and Mach 2006 are abnormal comparing to preceding months from March 2005 to January 2006. But merely on this count it cannot be said that it was due to fault on the part of the Respondent Telecom especially when they checked & tested and found no technical fault. The Report on EMR at Ex.R-8 shows no fault found internally or externally and that the telephone of the complainant is not having STD facility and it was working with dynamic facility. It also shows that even no fault found for the two spurts during the disputed period from 01-02-06, 15-02-06 & 16-03-06 to 31-03-06. When according to the Respondent Telecom they investigated and found no fault in the telephone, then we are at a loss to know as to how the complaint is maintainable for rectification of disputed telephone bills. It would be more so when it is not the case of the complainant that he is alone making use of telephone but the complaint shows that the telephone is being used by him and by his family members. Even the complainant has not furnished the name and address of the so-called Mobile-holders whose address he gathered and who according to him are not related or known to him or to his family members. The furnishing of name & address of the so-called Mobile holders in support of this contention would have assisted more in the investigation. In the absence of the same and especially when EMR Report at Ex.R-8 shows no technical fault found either internally or externally, it follows that the abnormal Net Chargeable Calls for the disputed period is due to and out-come of abnormal use of telephone by the complainant or his family members. Therefore we do not find deficiency in service by the Respondent Telecom. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has failed to prove Point No-1, so the same is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. In-view of our foregoing discussion and finding on Point NO-1, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 07-12-06) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Bheema Shankar against Telecom District Manager BSNL-Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is having a telephone bearing No. LGS 258193 installed by the Respondent he is using a telephone and he used to receive the nominal bills to the extent of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 604/- and at the maximum of Rs. 917/-. The said bills are produced with the complaint. Surprisingly the complainant received a bill No. TO80420067240 dt. 08-04-06 for Rs.3,140/-. So he applied to the Respondent for issue of detailed calls which was supplied. On perusal it is found that his telephone number was used to phone to Mobile No. 9945362322 about (10) times on 10-02-06 and (4) times to Mobile No. 9845713080 on 01-02-06 and (4) times to Mobile No. 9845933113 on 04-02-06 and for (8) times to Mobile No. 9845679730 on 19-02-06. He enquired by making telephone to the above said Mobiles and gathered their detailed address. But the said persons are not at all related and known to him or his family. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 for that the Respondent asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/-. The complainant has paid the said amount under protest vide Receipt No. 04106375 dt. 06-04-06. On 22-04-06 he has given a complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill for that there is no response from the Respondents. For issue of abnormal bill for Rs. 3,140/- and for enquiry with mobile holders he has suffered mental agony. Hence for all these reasons he has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and mental torture and refund of Rs. 917/- paid by him. 2. The Respondent Telecom District Manager Raichur has filed written statement contending that the bills of the telephone is depending upon using and talking of the phone with the others and accordingly the bill dt. 08-04-06 came to be issued. As such the complainant has to pay the bill amount to the Respondent. But instead of that the complainant has written a letter to the Respondent on 04-04-06. On perusing the Call-Billing-Records of the complainant it found that the complainant has not paid bill dt. 08-03-06 and 08-04-06 worth Rs. 2,915/- & 3,114/- respectively. The complainant used 2,196/- calls in-respect of bills dt. 08-03-06 and 2,313 calls in-respect of bill dt. 08-04-06. The Respondent has also enquired this matter in EMR pertaining to the telephone of the complainant wherein it also found that there is no fault during the disputed period. The consumer/complainant has used the phone recklessly with his family members, so the question of refund of bill amount and compensation does not arise. The complainant who is a public servant and police constable and moreover his family members used and made a maximum calls to different phone numbers. As such there is no fault with the Respondents nor with the meter. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief and Respondent has also filed his sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief. Both the parties have not chosen to cross-examine. On behalf of the complainant (10) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of Respondent (13) documents were got marked at Ex.R-1 to R-13. Both the counsel have filed written arguments. 4. Perused the records and written arguments. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents for receiving excess-billing as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is not in dispute that the complainant is having a telephone installation bearing No.LGS 258193. It is the case of the complainant that he used to receive the nominal bills to the extent of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 604/- and maximum of Rs. 917/-. But surprisingly he received a Bill No. TO80420067240 dt. 08-04-06 for Rs.3,140/-. So he applied to the Respondent Telecom for issue of detailed calls which was supplied and after verifying he found that his telephone number was used to phone to Mobile No. 9945362322 for about (10) calls on 10-02-06 and for (4) calls to Mobile No. 9845713080 on 01-02-06 and for (4) times to Mobile No. 9845933113 on 04-02-06 and for (8) calls to Mobile No. 9845679730 on 19-02-06. He enquired by making telephone to these Mobiles numbers and gathered their detailed address. But the said persons are not at all related or known to him or to his family. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 for that the Respondent asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/-. Accordingly he paid the said amount under protest vide Receipt No. 04106375 dt. 06-04-06. Later on 22-04-06 he gave an another complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill that there is no response from the Respondents. Hence the complaint. The complainant has reiterated the same in his sworn affidavit-evidence. 7. The Respondent Telecom has contended that telephone bill is depending upon using and talking of the phone with others and accordingly the telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 came to be issued and as such the complainant has to pay the bill amount to the Respondent. But instead of that the complainant has written a letter to the Respondent on 04-04-06. On perusing the Call-Billing-Records of the complainant it found that the complainant has not paid bill dt. 08-03-06 and 08-04-06 worth Rs. 2,915/- & 3,114/- respectively. The complainant has used 2,196 calls under the bill dt. 08-03-06 and 2,313 calls in-respect of bill dt. 08-04-06. This Respondent has also enquired this matter in EMR pertaining to the telephone of the complainant wherein it also found that there is no fault during the disputed period. The complainant and his family members have used the phone recklessly. The complainant who is a police constable is the public servant and his family members used and made a maximum calls to different phone numbers. As such there is no fault with the Respondents nor with the meter. So the question of refund of bill amount and compensation does not arise. The Respondent has reiterated the same in the affidavit-evidence. 8. The complainant has relied on in all (10) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. Ex.P-1 (1 to 6 ) are the six Receipts of telephone bill amount for Rs. 604/-, 917/-, 457/-, 655/-, 354/- & 453/- respectively. Ex.P-2 is the disputed bill for Rs. 3,140/-. Ex.P-3 is the complaint letter of the complainant dt. 28-03-06 addressed to the Telephone Engineer Exchange, Lingasugur. Ex.P-4 is the another complaint letter of the complainant dt. 22-04-06 addressed to the Telephone Engineer Exchange, Lingasugur. Both these complaints show acknowledgement endorsement receipt of the complaint by the Respondent on the very day of the two complaints. Ex.P-5 is telephone bill for Rs. 917/-. Ex.P-6 is the Normal Call Billing Records in-respect of complaint telephone No. 258193 issued by the Respondent Telecom. Ex.P-7 to P-10 are the four telephone bills issued for Rs. 604/-, 457/-, 354/-, 453/-. 9. The Respondent Telecom have relied on (13) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-13. Ex.R-1 is the Detail Call Report of telephone number of the complainant for the period from 01-02-06 to 28-02-06. Ex.R-2 is the Detail- Call Report for the period from 01-03-06 to 31-03-06. Ex.R-3 is Detail-Call Report for the period from 01-01-06 to 31-01-06. Ex.R-4 is the certified copy of the telephone bill dt. 08-03-06 for Rs. 2,985/- for the period from 01-02-06 to 28-02-06. Ex.R-5 is the Telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 for Rs. 3,070/- (3,140/- with sur-charge of Rs. 70/-) for the period from 01-03-06 to 31-03-06. Ex.R-6 is telephone bill dt. 08-02-06 for Rs. 604/- from 01-01-06 to 31-01-06. Ex.R-7 is telephone bill dt. 08-01-06 for Rs. 1,149/- for the period from 01-11-05 to 31-12-05. Ex.R-8 is the attested copy of Report on EMR for telephone bills dt. 08-12-05, 08-02-06 & 08-03-06 on the complaint of the complainant. Ex.R-9 is Fortnightly Meter Reading of the telephone of the complainant showing two spurts as stated in Ex.R-8. Ex.R-10 is the para-wise comments on the complaint filed in this Forum. Ex.R-11 is the Respondents letter dt. 04-04-06 addressed to the complainant stating the Receipt of his complaint dt. 04-04-06 and the matter is under investigation and further communication is awaited and asked him to make payment of provisional bill issued to him. Ex.R-12 is the copy of complaint of the complainant dt. 04-04-06. Ex.R-13 is the Normal Call Billing Records. 10. Now let us consider the earlier telephone bills preceding the disputed bill at Ex.P-2 for Rs. 3,140/- in the below table: Sl.No. Bill Date Period Net chargeable calls Bill amount (including sur-charge) (1) Ex.P-8 08-05-05 March & April 175 Rs. 467/- (2) Ex.P-9 08-10-05 September-2005 201 Rs. 364/- (3) Ex.P-10 08-11-05 October-2005 284 Rs. 463/- (4) Ex.R-7 08-01-06 Nov-December05 712 Rs. 1,149/- (5) Ex.R-6 08-02-06 January-2006 383 Rs. 604/- (6) Ex.R-4 08-03-06 February-2006 2146 Rs. 2,985/- (7) Ex.P-2/Ex.R-5 08-04-06 March-2006 2263 Rs. 3,140/- From a perusal of telephone bills as shown above it shows the Net chargeable calls are normal except for February and March 2006 vide Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 (Ex.P-2) which shows abnormal. It is the specific case of the complainant that after obtaining Telephone-Called-Sheets from the Respondent Office he noticed that on 10-02-06 about (10) calls were made from his telephone number to Mobile No. 9945362322, on 01-02-06 about (4) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845713080, on 04-02-06 about (4) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845933113, and on 19-02-06 about (8) calls were made to Mobile No. 9845679730. He enquired by making telephone to the above said mobiles and gathered their detailed address but the said persons are not at all either related to or known to him or to his family members. As such he made a complaint to the Respondent on 28-03-06 complaining the above facts for that the Respondent Office asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 917/- which he paid under protest vide Receipt No. 041016375 dt. 06-04-06. It is also his case that on 22-04-06 he gave another complaint to the Respondent for setting aside the disputed bill, but there is no response from the Respondents. The complainant has produced the copy of first complaint dt. 28-03-06 at Ex.P-3 and copy of second complaint dt. 22-04-06 at Ex.P-4. Bill for Rs. 917/- at Ex.P-5 and Normal Call Billing Records for the month of February & March 2006 at Ex.P-6. From a perusal of this Normal Call Billing Records at Ex.P-6 we find the record of four mobiles Nos. on 01-02-06, 04-02-06 10-02-06 & 19-02-06 as contended in para-3 of his complaint. The Respondent Telecom have also produced Detailed-Call-Report for the month of January 2006 at Ex.R-3, for February 2006 at Ex.R-1, and for March 2006 at Ex.R-2. The copy of telephone bill dt. 08-03-06 for the month of February 2006 shows the bill charges of Rs. 2,985/- and copy of telephone bill dt. 08-04-06 for the month of March showing bill charges at Rs. 3,140/- (including sur-charges). 11. As seen earlier the above-referred table shows 175 minimum Net chargeable calls and 383 maximum Net chargeable-calls. But the Telephone bill for the month of February and March 2006 at Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 shows 2146 and 2263 Net chargeable calls respectively. This in-turn shows that the Net Chargeable Calls for the month of February and March 2006 is abnormal comparing to the telephone bills for the preceding period from January 2006 upto March 2005. The Respondent Telephone have contended that they enquired this matter in EMR and found that there is no fault during the disputed period but it was due to abnormal use of telephone by the complainant and his family members. As seen above the Report on EMR at Ex.R-8 and Fortnightly Meter Reading of the complainant phone at Ex.R-9 produced by Respondent shows that the telephone of the complainant is STD barred and working with dynamic locking facility and it was checked for ID & externally and found no fault. It noticed two spurts during the disputed period from 01-02-06 to 15-02-06 and from 16-03-06 to 31-03-06 and no fault found during the disputed period also. It is the specific case of the Respondent that the complainant or his family members have used telephone recklessly leading to abnormal chargeable calls and not for any fault which revealed from thorough checking. We find substance in the contention of the Respondent. It may be that the Net chargeable calls for the month of February and Mach 2006 are abnormal comparing to preceding months from March 2005 to January 2006. But merely on this count it cannot be said that it was due to fault on the part of the Respondent Telecom especially when they checked & tested and found no technical fault. The Report on EMR at Ex.R-8 shows no fault found internally or externally and that the telephone of the complainant is not having STD facility and it was working with dynamic facility. It also shows that even no fault found for the two spurts during the disputed period from 01-02-06, 15-02-06 & 16-03-06 to 31-03-06. When according to the Respondent Telecom they investigated and found no fault in the telephone, then we are at a loss to know as to how the complaint is maintainable for rectification of disputed telephone bills. It would be more so when it is not the case of the complainant that he is alone making use of telephone but the complaint shows that the telephone is being used by him and by his family members. Even the complainant has not furnished the name and address of the so-called Mobile-holders whose address he gathered and who according to him are not related or known to him or to his family members. The furnishing of name & address of the so-called Mobile holders in support of this contention would have assisted more in the investigation. In the absence of the same and especially when EMR Report at Ex.R-8 shows no technical fault found either internally or externally, it follows that the abnormal Net Chargeable Calls for the disputed period is due to and out-come of abnormal use of telephone by the complainant or his family members. Therefore we do not find deficiency in service by the Respondent Telecom. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complainant has failed to prove Point No-1, so the same is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. In-view of our foregoing discussion and finding on Point NO-1, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 07-12-06) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.