Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra(HP)



Consumer complaint: 268/07

Date of presentation: 8.8.2007

Date of decision: 7.3.2009



Bir Singh Chaudhary son of Sh. Surjan Singh, resident of village Bhikhashah Bag, PO Bhawarana, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP)



Complainant Versus



1. A.O. (TR) General Manager, (Telegraph) District Kangra at Dharamshala

2. SDO (Telephone), Bhawarana, Tehsil Palampur



Opposite parties



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986



PRESIDENT: A.S.JAWAL

MEMBERS: PARDEEP DOGRA AND PABNA SHARMA



For the complainant: Sh. Vinay Dogra, Advocate

For opposite parties: Sh Harnek Singh, Advocate



ORDER

A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)



In nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that he is a subscriber of telephone No.247743. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect in his telephone, despite the fact that he had reported the matter to them time and again. The further grievance of the complainant is that his telephone was made functional since January 2007 and that the opposite parties had illegally issued telephone bill to the tune of Rs.3108/- for the month of December 2006. Upon this, he had obtained print out of the said period. On scrutiny of the print out, he was astonished to know that his telephone was mis-used as most of the calls were made to UP where he had no concern, whatsoever. Not only this, the opposite parties had again illegally issued telephone bill to the tune of Rs.11114/- for the period February and March, 2007 and that they had also disconnected his telephone and thus committed deficiency in service.

2. The Opposite parties contested the case of the complainant by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, and that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint. On merits, it is denied that the opposite parties have issued inflated telephone bills. Infact, the complainant has STD with dynamic lock facility, as such; the question of mis-use of his telephone by the opposite parties does not arise, at all. The disputed bills had been issued, as per use of the telephone by the complainant and his family members. The detailed print out had been supplied to the complainant. It has been denied that the telephone of the complainant remained faulty. However, it is asserted that his telephone remained faulty only for small intervals as per subscriber fault card for the period 2.1.07 to 3.1.2007, 16.2.2007 to 19.2.2007 and from 16.5.07 to 26.3.07 and form 29.5.2007 to 31.5.2007. The faults were immediately rectified by the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the telephone of the complainant was also kept under local call billing observation on 21.8.2007 and that the matter was investigated, but no justification for any rebate was found. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

3. This Forum on 3.4.2008 framed the following points for determination:-



1. Whether the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service, as alleged? OPC

2. Whether the complainant is not maintainable as alleged? OPOPs

3. Relief.



4. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-



Point No.1: Yes.

Point No.2: No.

Relief: The complaint is partly allowed as per operative part of the order



REASONS FOR FINDINGS

Points No.1 and 2



5. These points are interconnected and interlinked, hence are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition in discussion and for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects in the telephone of the complainant and that they have issued inflated telephone bills to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has urged that that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the telephone bills have been issued as per calls made by the complainant, his family members and relatives. He has further argued that the telephone of the complainant was also kept under observation and that no justification for any rebate was found.

7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record available on the file was gone into in detail. The complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1 and deposed, on oath, that his telephone remained dead in the month of December 2006, but the opposite parties had illegally issued telephone bill for the said period to the tune of Rs.3108/-. He has further deposed that on scrutiny of the detailed print out, supplied to him, of the said period, he was astonished to know that most of the calls were made to U.P where he has no relation. He has further deposed that thereafter, the opposite parties, had again issued inflated telephone for the period February-March 2007, to the tune of Rs.11114/- and that the matter was again reported to the opposite parties, but they inspite of conducting proper inquiry, had disconnected his telephone. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

8. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint, which is supported by the affidavit, EX.CW1 of the complainant and annexures, it is abundantly clear that the telephone of the complainant had remained out of order in the month of December, 2006. It also stands proved that during the period w.e.f. 1.12.2006 to 31.1.2007, the opposite parties have issued excessive telephone bill to the tune of Rs.3109/- to the complainant, despite the fact that his telephone had been faulty during the month of December 2006. It stands also proved, that thereafter the opposite parties had again issued inflated telephone bill to the tune of Rs.11114/- for the period 1.2.2007 to 31.3.2007. The action of the opposite parties, in issuing inflated telephone bills to the complainant is nothing but great deficiency in service because the opposite parties have not placed on record any material which goes to show that on receipt of representation, from the complainant, it had conducted a detailed and proper inquiry. No doubt, the opposite parties have placed on record photo copy of letter dated 2.11.2007 vide which they had informed the complainant that no justification had been found for grant of any rebate, but they have not placed, on record, the extract of the detailed inquiry conducted by them. Even the opposite parties have failed to place, on record, the affidavit of the technical official, who conducted the detailed inquiry regarding excess metering. Further, the copies of S.R.C. and detailed print out placed, on record, by the opposite parties are not helpful to them, because they have not placed on record, the detailed print out of the disputed period, qua local calls as well. The opposite parties have failed to prove that they had kept the telephone of the complainant under observation during the disputed period. No doubt, the opposite parties have placed reliance on Annexure OP-8, to prove that the telephone of the complainant was kept under observation, but its perusal goes to show that the telephone of the complainant was kept under observation after the disputed period i.e. on dated 21.8.2007.. These facts go to show that the opposite parties had not conducted a detailed and proper inquiry regarding excessive billing, as alleged by the complainant. Even the opposite parties have not followed the guidelines issued by the telecom vide letter No.4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.86 and that it had failed to adduce positive evidence on record, in order to prove, that the aforesaid guidelines have been amended now as per the reply of the opposite parties.

8. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

9. Now how, this deficiency can be cured? We are of the view that ends of justice will be met, in case the opposite parties are directed to modify the disputed bills. Consequently, demand notice dated 2.11.2007 issued by the opposite parties, is set-aside. Hence, point No.1 is answered in affirmative and point No.2 is decided in negative.

10. No other point argued or urged before us by any of the party, hence needs no consideration of this Forum.

RELIEF

11 In view of our findings on points No.1and 2 above, the complaint is partly allowed and we order the opposite parties to modify the disputed telephone bills dated 7.2.2007 to the tune of Rs.3108/-, and bill dated 7.4.2007 to the tune of Rs.11114/-.The charges will be as per highest telephone bill issued during the six bio-monthly period (one year) immediately preceding the disputed period plus 10 percent over the highest bill. The opposite parties are directed to issue modified telephone bill to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order and after deposit of the modified bill by the complainant, to restore his telephone, if disconnected. The excess amount under the disputed bill, if already deposited by the complainant, shall be adjusted in the future telephone bills. The complaint is allowed alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1000/-. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.