Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2005
(From an order dated 31.01.2005 passed by the District Forum,
Jharsuguda in C.D. Case No. 36 of 2004)
Gangadhar Garnayak, Advocate,
Correspondent, PTI, Jharsuguda
Resident of Gujarati Colony,
Po/Ps/Dist- Jharsuguda
… Appellant
Vrs.
1.
The General Manager,
Telecom District, Sambalpur,
BSNL, District – Sambalpur
2.
The Accounts Officer (TRA),
C/o The GMTD, Sambalpur,
District – Sambalpur (Orissa)
3.
The S.D.O. (Telephones),
BSNL, Jharsuguda,
District – Jharsuguda (Orissa)
… Respondents
____________
For the appellant : M/s L.K.Maharana & Associates
For the respondents: Mr P.N.Mahapatra, Advocate
_____________
P R E S E N T:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER
AND
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER
DATED THE 26th AUGUST, 2022
O R D E R
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT
Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this
appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective
status before the District Forum.
FACTS
3. The unsworn details of the case of the complainant is that
complainant has got land line telephone bearing No. 273324. It
is alleged inter alia that he was regularly using the telephone
and paying the bills. During 2003 up to 31.6.2003, he has paid
the bills raising calls from 0 to 299 but on August, 2003, he
received a bill having local calls of 3228 and he was asked to pay
the bill of Rs.4,359/-. Since excessive charge of bill has been
served, the complainant raised objection before the OPs. It is
alleged that the payment was not made keeping the bill under
dispute but OPs disconnected the telephone line. It is alleged by
the complainant that his telephone has no STD facility and
thereby such excessive bill was deficiency in service on the part
of the OPs. He also challenged the disconnection of telephone
without making any sudden spurt in the bill served in the month
of August, 2003. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
4. OPs filed written version stating that they have received
the complaint and excess meter reading committee was formed
under the Chairmanship
of Deputy General
Manager,
Telecommunication to enquire into allegation. After the report is
received, it is found that there is no any fault in the recording of
the meter, they concluded that the complainant/subscriber
must have used the calls by using ‘94’, ‘95’ and ‘98’ facilities
during the spurt period i.e. 30.6.2003 to 15.7.2003. They further
averred that they have informed the outcome of enquiry to the
complainant and as the arrear was not paid, they have
disconnected the telephone line. So, there is no any deficiency in
service on the part of the OPs.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed
the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The OPs Telephone Department authorities shall
prepare two bills one to include charges which are correctly
payable by the complainant local call being computed to be
equal to teh average number of calls metered during the six
bi-monthly periods (one year) immediately preceding the
disputed period plus 10% over the average. Such bill is called
“split bill”. Another bill shall be prepared for the balance and
marked
as
“part
local
call
bill
(disputed)”.
The
subscriber/complainant shall pay the first bill/split bill within
7 days of its receipt, the OPs are directed not to insist on the
payment of the second bill till final decision is taken on the
