P SANKARAN KUTTY Vs. TELECOM BSNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER who was the complainant in Complaint Case No. 1183 of 2004, assails the order dated 26. 6. 2007 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thiruvananthapuram dismissing appeal against the order dated 19. 11. 2004 of a District Forum whereby batch of complaints including the said complaint No. 1183 of 2004 was dismissed.

(2.) SHORT submission advanced by the petitioner is that the number of free calls was reduced and telephone rental was enhanced and arrears demanded retrospectively from the petitioner by BSNL-respondent illegally. Pursuant to the order dated 29. 5. 2008, petitioner has filed the copy of Circular dated 19. 4. 2002 issued by BSNL-respondent. This would show that considering the Census Report for 2001, it was decided that for charging monthly telephone rentals the classification of the areas into urban and rural and vice-versa be made as per that census report and monthly rentals based on such classification be realised for all subscribers w. e. f. 1. 5. 2002. It is on the basis of this Circular that rental after 1. 5. 2002 was increased and number of free calls reduced by the respondent. Impugned bill on the petitioner was, thus, validly raised by the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.