Friday, June 18, 2010

TC: Telecom shall furnish details about excessive billing

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice N. KANNADASAN, PRESIDENT

THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN, B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I

F.A. NO.576/2005

(Against order in O.P.No.100/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai)

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008

The General Manager (Telecom),

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, :: Appellant/Opposite party

Madurai 625 002. rep. by Adv.Mr.K.Anbarasan.

Vs.

L.D. Thiyagarajan,

S/o.Lazarus Devi,

6-4/35 “J” Avenue, :: Respondent/Complainant

Viswanathapuram, rep. by Adv.S.Balasubramani

Madurai 625 014.

ORDER

Pon. GUNASEKARAN, MEMBER

1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dt.27.07.2005 passed by the District Forum, Madurai in OP.No.100/2004. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before District Forum.

2. The complaint is filed by raising the contentions as follows:

The Respondent/Complainant was the Deputy Registrar in the Madurai Kamarajar University. He was having a telephone connection from Appellant/Opposite Party. His telephone at his residence is 2643070. After shifting his residence in the month of June 2003, on two occasions from 01.08.2003 to 30.09.2003 he received a bill from Appellant/Opposite Party for Rs.10.462/- and he has received another bill dated 10.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.10,830/- for the period from 1.10.2003 to 30.11.2008. As per the above bills, it is indicated that the complainant has utilized the telephone to the extent of 8132 metered calls which is highly excessive. The complainant’s average telephone bill would be around Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- for several years in spite of fact that he had internet connection.

3. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the bills for huge amount since he has never used so many metered calls as found in the bills. The Complainant had doubt that his Telephone was misused by the Staff of the Appellant/Opposite Party by tampering the telephone line with the help of their own staff.

4. The Respondent/Complainant requested the Appellant/Opposite Party to furnish the details with regard to STD, ISD, “95” and the local calls made from his telephone. But the Appellant/Opposite Party never responded and disconnected the telephone without any notice on 30.11.2003. Hence the Respondent/Complainant was constrained to get a new telephone connection from private company.

5. Even though the complainant has sought for details as sated above, the appellant/opposite party furnished the telephone call details for STD, ISD only and informed that “95” calls and local calls print out could not provided. The Respondent/Complainant has complaint against the Staff of the Telephone Department, but they are not accepted.

6. Under the above said circumstances, the complaint is filed before District Forum seeking relief as stated hereunder.

7. The Appellant/Opposite Party resisted the complaint to effect that all the information required by the complainant were furnished and due to technical reasons the “95” and local calls pint out could not be provided. A further stand is taken to the effect is that if the telephone was locked properly nobody can misuse the same. Since telephone bill amount was not paid by the Respondent/Complainant, therefore, the telephone was disconnected on 30.11.2003.

8. Further, Appellant/Opposite Party contended that the Respondent/Complainant was provided locking facility and internet facility to his telephone. Hence all STD, “95” and Local Calls could have been made only by the Respondent/complainant himself or by his friends or his colleagues only. B.S.N.L. Department conducted a proper investigation and conducted all tests and proved that there is no defect in their equipments. If the complainant wants reconnection for his telephone, he has to clear the bills due and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


9.
Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked on the side of the Respondent/Complainant. Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

10. The District Forum on perusal of records, held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the complainant.

11. Aggrieved by this Order passed by the District Forum, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred present this Appeal.

12. We do not find any merits in the Appeal. The Appellant/Opposite Party contended that due to technical reasons, the details of “95” and local print out could not be provided and the telephone was disconnected since the bill amount was not paid by the complainant.

13. As per the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in “2003 CCJ 1169” between “Telecom District Manager, Department of Telecommunication” Vs. Kamaljit Kaur, the Telephone Department is expected to furnish all the details in course of the investigation made by them with regard to the dispute relating to the excess billing and relevant observation is extracted hereunder:

“the telephone department is bound to furnish

all the detailed investigation made by them in

the case of excess billing.”

14. In the light of the above observation, we are not able to appreciate the stand taken by the opposite party in refusing to furnish all the details of billing. In view of the fact that the opposite parties have failed to furnish all the necessary details and considering the fact that only in the disputed bills suddenly a huge amount is claimed, even though for the earlier period the complainant never utilized the telephone, we are of the opinion that the excessive bills were sent to the complainant probably due to misuse by the third parties, which was not properly investigated.

15. Having regard to what is stated above, we confirm the order of the District Forum and dismiss the Appeal. However there will be no order as to cost.

PON GUNASEKARAN N. KANNADASAN

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT

INDEX : YES / NO

Ns/nkj/telephones


Courtesy_

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/190F.A.576%20OF%202005%20IN%20O.P.100%20OF%202004%20(2).htm


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Consumer forum, Consumer State Commission, Consumer National Commission, Supreme Court as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.