DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 280 of 26.09.2007<br /> Decided on : 19-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Sanjeev Gupta aged about 44 years, S/o Sh. Hans Raj Gupta, R/o C/o Rohit Motors, Goniana Road, New Pukhraj Cinema, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Stateman House, Barakhambha Road, Connaught Place, new Delhi, through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.The General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Opposite parties are carrying on the business of telecommunications in India under the name and style of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Here-in-after referred to as 'BSNL'). Allured by tall claims made by them through advertisements regarding their services in the field of telecommunications, complainant purchased three mobile connections under their VPN scheme. Mobile connections No. 9417232511, 9417232515 and 9417232516 were allotted to him. Average bill of all the three mobile connections was ranging between Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1200/- per month. Thereafter, he got issued two more mobile connections No. 9417800517 and 9417800518. Average bill of all the five mobiles was around Rs. 2,000/- per month. As per conditions of the opposite parties there was credit limit of Rs. 2,000/-. It means that whenever the bill exceeds the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/-, opposite parties were bound to stop the outgoing facility. Upto 6.4.07 everything was going smoothly. He was paying the bills regularly so issued by the opposite parties from time to time. Bill for the period from 7.3.07 to 6.4.07 was also paid by him. Nothing was outstanding toward him upto 6.4.07. Bill for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 was received by him from the opposite parties whereby demand of Rs. 36,330.60 has been raised. He requested the opposite parties through letter dated 17.5.07 that there must be some fault in the machines as previously the amount of the bill used to be around Rs. 2000/- per month. Sudden and sharp increase to more than Rs. 36,000/- is smelling of foul play. Moreover, he is not bound to pay more than Rs. 2,000/- i.e. credit limit. They should have disconnected the service when credit limit was crossed. He deposited Rs. 2,000/- out of the amount of Rs. 36,330.60. He again received bill for the period 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 for a total sum of Rs. 45,195/- i.e. 10,872.60 as current bill and Rs. 36,322/- as previous balance less Rs. 2,000/- deposited by him. Letter was again written by him that he is not liable to pay the amount exceeding Rs. 2,000/- as it was their duty to discontinue the service when credit limit was crossed. It was further requested by him that he was not interested in keeping the mobile connections any more. Another bill for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 for Rs. 47,120/- i.e. 45,195/- as previous balance plus Rs. 2014.98 as current bill was sent. He assails the demands raised by the opposite parties as against the principles of natural justice. According to him conduct of the opposite parties is unjustified and he has undergone mental shock and agony. He is being harassed. In these circumstances, this complaint under 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the demands or withdraw them; refrain from making this demand even in future; pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment and mental tension besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objection that complaint has been filed by concealing material facts. On merits, they admit their carrying on the business of telecommunications in India. No allurement was given to the complainant. Complainant had taken three connections in October, 2006 under VPN Scheme. His bill was around Rs. 4000/- per month and credit limit was Rs. 2,000/-. His telephone connection could not be disconnected due to non-payment as in their estimate, he was considered trust worthy. He cannot take benefit of their leniency. In the bill dated 7.5.07 commencing from 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 against A/c No. 100449080 one year old called data records were built i.e. the remaining calls for the bills from March, 1006 to June, 2007 were included after receiving E Mail from A.O. (TR) CMTS Chandigarh. Complainant did not make the payment. Outstanding amount was due against him for the period from 6.4.07. Bill for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 was for Rs. 36,322/-. Letter of the complainant dated 17.5.07 was replied vide letter dated 26.6.07. Instead of clearing the entire amount, complainant deposited Rs. 2,000/- only. Total amount of bill from 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 is Rs. 45,195/- which includes previous balance of Rs. 34,322/-. Bill is legal and valid. Bill was again sent but he has not made the payment. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. On the basis of the statement dated 18.12.07 made by the learned counsel for the complainant, name of opposite party No. 1 was ordered to be deleted.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of bills dated 7.1.06, 7.2.06, 7.3.06, 7.4.06, 7.5.06, 7.6.07, 7.7.06, 7.8.06 and 7.9.06 (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-10 respectively), photocopy of receipt dated 20.9.06 (Ex. C-11), photocopy of bill dated 7.10.06 (Ex. C-12), photocopy of receipt dated 24.10.06 (Ex. C-13), photocopy of bill dated 7.11.06 (Ex. C-14), photocopy of receipt dated 24.11.06 (Ex. C-15), photocopy of bill dated 7.12.06 (Ex. C-16),photocopy of receipt dated 22.12.06 (Ex. C-17), photocopy of bill dated 7.2.07 (Ex. C-18), photocopy of receipt dated 22.2.07 (Ex. C-19), photocopy of bill dated 7.3.07 (Ex. C-20), photocopy bill dated 7.4.07 (Ex. C-21), photocopy of receipt dated 28.4.07 (Ex. C-22), photocopy of bill dated 7.5.07 (Ex. C-23), photocopy of bill dated 7.5.07 (Ex. C-24), photocopy of receipt dated 6.6.07 (Ex. C-25), photocopy of letter dated 17.5.07 (Ex. C-26), photocopy of bill dated 7.6.07 (Ex. C-27) , photocopy of bill dated 7.7.07 (Ex. C-28), photocopies of Order Forms (Ex. C-29 to Ex. C-37) and Tariff Plan (Ex. C-38).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh.Mohinder Pal, DEP Legal (Ex. R-1), photocopies of invoices dated 7.8.07, 7.7.07, 7.5.07 and 7.6.07 (Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-5 respectively), photocopy of Call Data Record (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of Office Memorandum (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, Besides, this we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was making payment of the bills sent by the opposite parties regularly. Nothing was outstanding. Bill for the period from 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 was sent for Rs. 36,330.60, copy of which is Ex. C-24. Amount of this bill is highly inflated. Average amount of the bill of all the five mobile connections was around Rs. 2,000/- per month. As per conditions there is credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- meaning thereby that opposite parties were duty bound to disconnect the outgoing facility whenever credit limit exceeded Rs. 2,000/-. He further argued that opposite parties are alleging that they have received E Mail from A.O.(TR)CMTS, Chandigarh and on its basis one year old data record has been built on account of which the amount of bill copy of which is Ex. C-24 is Rs. 36,330.60. His next submission is that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the amount on the basis of old called data record particularly when no arrears have been shown by them in the bill sent for the period prior to 7.4.07 to 6.5.07.<br /> 8. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that bill copy of which is Ex. C-24 is quite legal and valid. Thereafter bills for the period 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 and 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 have been issued. Complainant is bound to pay the amount of the bills. Previous balance in the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-24 to the tune of Rs. 24,755/- has been added on the basis of Called data record copy of which is Ex. R-6. He also drew our attention to the affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Pal, DEP Legal and the documents Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-5 and Ex. R-7. Complainant cannot wriggle out of the situation by merely saying that he could not be allowed to make use of the mobiles more than the maximum credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- .<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Admittedly complainant had three mobile connections under VPN scheme of the opposite parties. Thereafter two more mobile connection were taken by him. Copies of the various bills issued to him from time to time are Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-10, Ex. C-12, Ex. C-14, Ex. C-16, Ex. C-18 and Ex. C-20. Dispute between the parties arose when opposite parties issued bill dated 7.5.07 for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 copy of which is Ex. C-24 showing the total amount due as Rs. 36,322/-. In the next bill dated 7.5.05 to 6.6.07 copy of which is Ex. C-27, previous balance has been recorded as Rs. 36, 322/-. The total amount of this bill is Rs. 45,195/-. In the next bill for the period from 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 amount of Rs. 45,195/- has been recorded as balance. The total amount of the bill is Rs. 47,210/-. Matter has been clarified by Sh.Suresh Kumar, Junior Accounts Officer of opposite party No. 3. His statement is reproduced as under :<br /> “I am conversant with the facts of this case. I have brought the record of this case with me, which pertains to our office. Upto 6.4.07 nothing was shown outstanding against the complainant in the bills issued by the opposite parties. It is only in the bill for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07, copy of which is Ex. C-24, a sum of Rs. 31,197.60 has been shown as usage charges. Out of this amount of Rs. 31,197.60, actual usage charges for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 are Rs. 6442/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 24,755/- was shown on the basis of Call Detailed Record received from CMT Chandigarh for the period March, 2006 to 6.5.2007. Rs. 1200/- is the rent for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 @ Rs. 240/- per connection. Apart from this, Rs. 935/- are service tax and cess i.e. Rs. 917/- as service tax and Rs. 18/- as cess. Total actual charges for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 are Rs. 8577/-. As per bill Ex. C-24, previous balance was Rs. 2011/- but complainant deposited Rs. 2020/-. Opposite parties have given adjustment of security amount of Rs. 2,000/- out of the bill amount of bill Ex. C-24. Nothing has been deposited Again said Rs. 2,000/- on 6.6.07. Security amount of Rs. 2,000/- was not adjusted out of bill, copy of which is Ex. C-24, Out of the bill Ex. C-24, previous balance was Rs. 36,322/-. Amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited by the complainant on 6.6.07 has been adjusted. Bill for the period 7.5.07 to 6.6.07, copy of which is Ex. C-27, is for total amount of Rs. 45,195/-. Out of the amount of Rs. 45,195/-, Rs. 1200/- are rent for all the five connections, Rs. 7863.40 are actual usage charges of this period, Rs. 31.40 discount. Rs. 1083.84 as service tax, Rs. 31.12 as education cess on service tax. Actual amount payable for the period 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 is Rs. 10,872.60. Bill copy of which is Ex. C-28 is for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07. Total amount shown in this bill i.e. Rs. 2014.98 is regarding the actual usage. Incoming facility to the connections was stopped on 12.6.2007 and outgoing facility was stopped on 6.6.07. Connections were permanently disconnected on 24.7.07. Security amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been adjusted out of the due amount. Since last bill for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 was upto 12.6.07, rent of Rs. 609/- out of the rent amount of Rs. 1200/- shown in Ex. C-28 has been adjusted. Excess paid amount of Rs. 9/- made by the complainant has also been adjusted. Total amount of bill Ex. C-24 regarding actual usage for the period for which it has been issued is Rs. 8577/-. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited by the complainant on 6.6.07, the balance remained Rs. 6577/-. Amount of actual usage of bill Ex. C-27 for which it has been issued Rs. 10,873/- (Rs. 10,872.60). Bill for actual usage for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 is Rs. 2,014.98 say Rs. 2015/-. Out of this amount of Rs. 2,015/- adjustment and rent has been given to the tune of Rs. 609/- as this bill is upto 12.6.07. In this manner, bill Ex. C-28 remained for Rs. 1406/-. Amount for the bill Ex. C-24 to Ex. C-28 for the actual usage for the period for which they were issued comes to Rs. 18,856/-. out of this amount, security of Rs. 2,000/- has been adjusted and the amount for actual usage is Rs. 16,856/-.”<br /> He made the statement on the basis of the record brought by him clarifying the position. Out of the bill for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07, copy of which is Ex. C-24 a sum of Rs. 31,197.60 has been shown as usage charges. Out of this amount, Rs. 6442/- are for the actual usage charges for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07. Remaining amount of Rs. 24,755/- has been shown on the basis of actual data record received from CMT Chandigarh for the period March, 2006 to 6.5.07. Prior to the issuance of the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-24, opposite parties were not showing the amount of Rs. 24,755/- as arrears. It is only in this bill, this amount has been added in the amount of Rs. 31,197.60 which has been shown in the column of usage charges. Question is as to whether the non-mentioning of the arrears in the previous, bills would amount to or it would be deemed that payment of the previous bills stands made by the subscriber. There is a column in the bill sent to the complainant concerning balance. In the bills sent for the period prior to 7.4.07 to 6.5.07 amount of Rs. 24,755/- has not specifically been shown as previous balance or outstanding amount. Similar matter had arisen before Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of S.D.O. (Phones) Dinanagar Vs. Kulwant Singh Kattal 2007(2) CLT 162. It was held that once the subscriber pays the subsequent bill in which arrears of the previous bill might not have been shown, in these circumstances, on the payment of the subsequent bill, all the previous arrears would be deemed to have paid. In other words, once in a subsequent bill, arrears of previous bills are not mentioned, it would be deemed that there were no arrears. Accordingly, complainant is not bound to pay Rs. 24,755/- out of the amount of the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-24. Remaining amount of Rs. 6577/- is payable, the details of which have been given by Sh. Suresh Kumar in statement which has been made by him today before this Forum. Bill for the period from 7.5.07 to 6.6.07, copy of which is Ex. C-27 is for a total sum of Rs. 45,195/-. Out of this amount Rs. 1200/- are rent for five mobile connections, Rs. 7863.40 as actual usage charges of this period., Rs. 31.40 discount, Rs. 1083.84 as service tax, Rs. 31.12 as education cess on service tax. Actual amount payable as per statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar for this period i.e. from 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 is Rs. 10,872.60. Say Rs. 10873/- in round figure. Bill for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 copy of which is which is Ex. C-28 is for Rs. 2014.98 regarding actual usage and Rs. 45,195/- has been shown as previous balance. Incoming facility to the connections of the complainant was stopped on 12.6.07 and outgoing on 6.6.07. Mobile connections were permanently disconnected on 24.7.07. Since last bill for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 was upto 12.6.07, rent of Rs. 609/- out of rent amount of Rs. 1200/- shown in Ex. C-28 has been adjusted. Excess amount of Rs. 9/- paid by the complainant as is evident from Ex. C-24 has also been adjusted. Total amount of bill copy of which is Ex. C-24 was Rs. 8577/- regarding actual usage for the period from 7.4.07 to 6.5.07. Complainant deposited Rs. 2,000/- out of it on 6.6.07 as is evident from Ex. C-25. In this manner, the balance remained Rs. 6,577/-. The amount of actual usage of the connections as per bill Ex. C-27 for the period 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 is Rs. 10,873/- as is clear from the statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar made on the basis of record. It has also been shown in the bill itself as Rs. 10,872.60. In the round figure, it comes to Rs. 10,873/-. Bill for the actual usage for the period from 7.6.07 to 6.7.07 is for Rs. 2,014.98. In round figures, it is Rs. 2,015/-. Out of this amount of the bill, adjustment of rent has been given to the tune of Rs. 609/- as this bill is upto 12.6.07, as is clear from the statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar. In this manner. Bill copy of which is Ex. C-28 remained for Rs. 1,406/- i.e. regarding actual usage. Amount in the bills copies of which are Ex. C-24, Ex. C-27 & Ex. C-28 for the actual usage in this manner comes to Rs. 18,856/- (Rs. 6577/-+10873/-+1406/-). Out of this amount, security amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been adjusted as is evident from the statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar and the amount of actual usage is now Rs. 16,856/-.<br /> 11. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties should not have allowed the use of the mobile connections beyond the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- and as such, complainant is not liable to pay any amount, cannot be accepted. Record regarding usage of the mobile connections was brought by Sh. Suresh Kumar. Some of the record has also been proved by the parties. Complainant could not show us that he was not liable to pay rent of the mobile connections @ Rs. 240/- per month for each connection and that he did not make use of the mobile connections and as such, he is not liable to pay Rs. 8577/- for the period 7.4.07 to 6.5.07, Rs. 10872.60 (in round figure Rs. 10873/-) for the period from 7.5.07 to 6.6.07 and Rs. 1406/- for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07. In other words, he has failed to show us that he did not make calls during this period to this extent and that rent was not payable by him. Leniency of the concerned officials of the opposite parties that they did not disconnect the mobile connection when he crossed the credit limit of Rs. 2,000/- in making the calls cannot be considered in his favour in the facts and circumstances of this case.<br /> 12. Now the question arises as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As discussed above, amount of Rs. 24,755/- has been wrongly claimed by the opposite parties in the bill, copy of which is Ex. C-24. Bill copy of which is Ex. C-28 should have been for Rs. 1406/- for actual usage instead of Rs. 2014.98 (Rs. 2015 in round figure). Since the opposite parties have shown the inflated amount in the bills except Rs. 16,856/- as has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 13. In view of the our foregoing discussion, conclusion is that the demand of the amount raised by the opposite parties through bill copy of which is Ex. C-28 is illegal beyond the amount of Rs. 16,856/- and as such, it is liable to be set aside. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand shown in the bill Ex. C-28 beyond Rs. 16,856/-. Complainant is craving for damages for Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental tension. In our view, there is no case to allow it as it is not a case where complainant is not at fault at all.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Withdraw the demand of the amount raised through bill for the period 7.6.07 to 6.7.07, copy of which is Ex. C-28 beyond Rs. 16,856/- and refrain from recovering the remaining sum beyond it.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt. <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 19-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />