BSNL Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent is the subscriber of telephone No. 275460 installed by the appellants at his residence. As per respondent, his bi -monthly bill never exceeded Rs. 750 but the appellants issued to him a bill for the month of August, 2004 to September, 2004 to the tune of Rs. 6,069 which was highly inflated. The respondent was supplied print out for the said period where it was found that the maximum calls were made to Mobile No. 98170 96189 which was an un -known number to the respondent as well as his family members and neither the respondent nor anyone in his family ever called upon that number. As per the respondent, the appellant did not follow the guidelines issued by the Telecom Department to find out the reason of the sudden spurt in the telephone bill of the respondent. This compelled the respondent to file the complaint in the Forum below.

(2.) RECORD of the case file has been perused and the arguments put forth by the Counsel for both the parties have been heard. Mr. Pradeep Dogra, Counsel for the appellants has argued that his clients are not deficient in rendering service to the respondent. As per Mr. Dogra the exchange is having electronic system and detailed print out has been supplied to the respondent by the appellants. He has further argued that there is dynamic locking facility as such it was the duty of the respondent to lock the telephone when not in use. Another argument raised by Mr. Dogra is that regarding the bill prior to the disputed bill also the respondent filed complaint and that was decided in his favour and taking advantage of that the respondent has filed the present complaint regarding the second bill also which needs dismissal. As per Mr. Dogra since the respondent did not use the dynamic locking facility, so his clients are not deficient in rendering service to the respondent. As such he prays that his appeal be accepted for the reasons mentioned above.

(3.) THE stand of Mr. Dogra has been controverted by Mr. Amit Sood, Counsel for the respondent. The stand taken by Mr. Sood is that his telephone was never kept under observation by the appellants nor any steps were ever taken by them to find out the reason to sudden spurt in respondent s telephone. The previous bill of the respondent was also inflated and he filed complaint in this regard which was allowed. But in spite of this, the appellants did not care to keep the telephone of the respondent under observation which resulted into sudden spurt and that became a reason for inflated bill for the second time. According to Mr. Sood the appellants were deficient in rendering service to the respondent. He has placed reliance on the decision of our own Commission titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Subhash Chand, First Appeal No. 373/2006. decided on 11.8.2008. While going through the record, it is seen that the respondent has filed affidavit regarding excessive billing and it also finds mention that the respondent or his family member did not use the telephone to the extent of the bill and that bill was inflated one. However, no affidavit of the appellants is found on record in support of their stand. Only the affidavit of Kalyan Singh is found who has no personal knowledge about the telephone. Nothing is deposed as to how he can say that there was no defect in the disputed bill. There is no evidence on the record to show as to whether the DP boxes were locked and whether the keys were with the JE. From the perusal of the previous bi -monthly bills one thing is clear that the previous bills did not exceed Rs. 750. So there is no reason for sudden increase in the bill of the respondent except that there was some fault either in the equipment or in the lines or in the system itself. Nothing has been brought on the record by the appellants to suggest that there was any special occasion at the house of the respondent or that the telephone was ever kept under observation which was required under the instructions issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authorities. There is nothing on record to suggest that any steps were ever taken by the appellants to find out the reason of inflated bill of the respondent.