State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
General Manager, B.S.N.L., Dhanbad And ... vs Javed Akhtar on 25 September, 2008
1 JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI First Appeal no.126 of 2008 Against judgment dated 11.3.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bokaro, in Consumer Complaint no.117 of 2006. General Manager, B.S.N.L., Dhanbad and others - Appellants Vrs Javed Akhtar - Respondent For Appellants : M/s B.K.Pathak and A.Pratik, Advocates. For Respondent : M/s A.Banerjee and D.C.Mishra, Advocates. Before: - Justice Gurusharan Sharma, President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy, Member And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Member. J U D G M E N T
Kalyani Kar Roy: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bokaro, in Consumer Complaint no.117 of 2006. By the impugned order, opposite party nos.1 and 2-Appellants hereinafter were directed to recast bills dated 11.9.2005 and 11.01.2006 at par with the bill dated 11.11.2005 and to adjust all the rental charges for the period of non-functioning of the telephone and to issue the same to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order. The Forum below further directed the appellants to restore the telephone connection of complainant-respondent as soon as he paid the rectified bills dated 11.9.2005 and 11.01.2006.
2. The complainant-respondent filed complaint regarding excess billing in respect of his W.L.L.4 telephone no.203331 installed at his premises since the year 2004. Allegation of the complainant was that since installation, the said telephone failed to provide any service, due to inherent defect in the set. Even after several requests and complain, the O.Ps. did not rectify the defect and instead issued bills dated 11.9.2004 to 11.7.2005, recording zero meter calls and charging only rental amount. All these bills were paid by the complainant. The said telephone started functioning only in July 2005, but surprisingly, all on a sudden, the complainant received bill dated 11.9.2005 for Rs.16,976.00, bill dated 11.11.2005 for Rs.9,796.00 and bill dated 11.1.2006 amounting to Rs.12,628.00. The complainant visited several times to the office of the O.Ps. and requested for correction/rectification of these inflated/excess bills, but no positive steps were taken by them, rather his telephone service was disconnected in January 2006. After receiving demand notice dated 30.6.2006 from the O.Ps., the complainant paid the bill dated 11.11.2005 for Rs.9,796.00 to enable the O.Ps. to rectify the other inflated bills, but the O.Ps. did nothing. Hence, the above referred complaint case was filed for rectifying the telephone bills dated 11.9.2005, 11.11.2005 and 1.1.2006 and for directing the O.Ps. to restore his telephone connection, to exempt rental charges during the non-operational period and to pay Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.10,000.00 a litigation cost.
3. Denying the allegation of the respondent-complainant, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of his telephone bills. As a result the appellant department issued legal notice on 30.6.2006 for payment of the outstanding dues/arrears to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 and to save his skin, the respondent filed the above referred complaint on 28.12.2006. He further submitted that the disputed bills in question are correct as well as genuine and based on actual consumption. So far the production of computerized call details for the disputed periods is concerned, the same are not made available at this juncture, due to technical difficulties, for which the complainant had to fulfil certain formalities as per departmental rules, like deposit of required fee for each period, application in writing to the concerned officer for the call etc., which the complainant failed to fulfill at the relevant time. However, the fortnightly meter readings for the period from 11/9/2005 to 11.1.2006 were produced before the learned Court below on 7.5.2007.
4 After hearing the parties and perusal of the materials on record, we are left with no doubt that the respondent was not a chronic defaulter. From bill dated 11.09.2005 of the rental period from 1.7.2005 to 31.8.2005, we find that all on a sudden for the calls made during the period from 21.4.2004 to 31.8.2005 opening meter reading was shown as 17 and closing meter reading as 13,898.00. It is pertinent to mention here that in the previous bills dated 11.11.2004, 11.1.2005, 11.3.2005, 11.5.2005 and to 11.7.2005 only opening meter reading was mentioned as 17 and closing meter reading was mentioned as zero. This was an apparent error and in our view amounted to deficiency in service of BSNL. Further in the said computerized bill dated 11.9.2005 there was also a calculation mistake in the number of total metered calls. Although from fortnightly meter reading produced by BSNL we find that the complainant-respondent had availed the opportunity of the telephone service and made calls, but the BSNL, by mistake failed to mention the closing meter reading in those disputed bills served to the appellant. After scrutinizing the bills dated 11.11.2005 and 11.1.2006, we find no such apparent defects/anomalies, in the absence of detailed meter reading.
5 In the circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum had considered the matter in proper perspective. However, payment of a sum of Rs.2,500 as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation cost will serve the ends of justice. The B.S.N.L. is directed to rectify those bills dated 11.9.2005, 11.11.2005 and 11.1.2006, since there was an error in the closing meter reading in the bill dated 11.9.2005 within thirty days from the date of this order. The complainant - respondent is directed to pay the rectified bills thereafter within thirty days. The appellants are further directed to restore the telephone connection of the respondent as soon as he paid the rectified bills dated 11.9.2005, 11.11.2005 and 11.1.2006.
6. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the above modifications in the impugned judgement as mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph 5 above. No costs.
The 25th September, 2008 Ranchi Member Member President