Back
2010(2) CPR 248
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member
Telecom BSNL & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Sasidharan Nair, A.G. —Respondent
Appeal No. 885 of 2003
Decided on 7.5.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. G.S. Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Telephone Department is bound to issue detailed telephone bill at the request of consumer.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 and 17—Telephone—Bill—Deficiency in service—OPs directed by Fora below to re-assess telephone bill and charge only average amount plus 10% over average amount as per Rules in Para 434(ii) of P&T Manual, apart from proportionate rental rebate and cost of Rs. 500/- —Nothing on record to show that Telephone Department had conducted investigation in the matter in accordance with DOT circular or in accordance with provisions contained in P&T Manual—OPs failed to issue detailed bill—Such failure or omission would amount to deficiency in service on part of OPs—OPs are bound to issue detailed telephone bill at the request of consumer—No illegality or irregularity in impugned order passed by forum below. (Paras 4 to 6)
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member—The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 28.3.2003 passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in OP. No. 89/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Exts. A1 and A3 telephone bills. It was alleged that there was something wrong with the metering equipment or there was misuse of the complainant’s telephone connection No.2495870 by the departmental staff or some outsiders. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was nothing wrong with the metering equipment as the same was controlled by computer. They denied the alleged deficiency in service. But the Forum below on an appreciation of the documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not conducting an investigation in the matter as per the DOT circular and the provision of P&T Manual. Thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to re-assess the telephone bill dated 7.1.2003 and charge only average amount plus 10% over the average amount as per the Rules in para 434(ii) of the P&T Manual. The opposite parties are also directed to grant proportionate rental rebate in the bill dated 7.3.2003 and not to collect any re-connection charge or rental or to other charges from the date of disconnection to the date of re-connection of the complainant’s telephone connection with a further direction to pay Rs. 500 towards cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties.
2. We heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the opposite parties conducted an investigation in the matter and it was found that there was no defect in the metering equipment and that the telephone bills were issued based on the readings recorded by the metering equipment. Thus the appellant/opposite parties requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He much relied on the failure on the apart of the appellant/opposite parties in issuing detailed bill requested for and also the failure to conduct proper investigation or inquiry in the matter as stipulated in the P&T Manual and the DOT circular. Thus, the respondent/complainant requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
1.Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the disputed Exts. A1 and A3 telephone bills?
2. Whether the opposite parties have conducted an investigation as stipulated in P&T Manual and DOT circular regarding the correctness of the metering equipment?
3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP. No.89/03?
Points 1 to 3.
The respondent/complainant is a consumer under the appellants/opposite parties. The complainant is provided with telephone connection with Number, 2495870 which was installed in October 2001. There is no dispute that the complainant received telephone bills and as per the bills up to July- August, 2002 the bi-monthly telephone charges were at the rate of about Rs. 500. But the bill for the months of September-October, 2002 was for Rs. 928 and that the bill for the months of November-December, 2002 was for Rs. 1,886. On getting Ext. A1 bill for September-October 2002. The complainant filed a complaint before the first opposite party, Ext. A2 is copy of the said complaint dated 20.11.2002 submitted to the first opposite party. Junior Engineer, BSNL Kangazha, Kottayam. On getting Ext. A3 bill dated 7.1.2003 the complainant submitted Ex
