BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. SANTISSIMA MARY KHARKONGOR, W/O F SYIEMLIEH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the respective learned counsels and perused the memo of Appeal and the case records. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant is the customer of the Appellant/Opposite Party being subscriber of telephone No 2240457 at her residence. The Complainant alleged before the learned District Forum in her Complaint No.31 of 2007 that there was discrepancy towards excess meter reading and billing despite moderate use of the telephone for local calls only. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the OP on 29.8.05. On 19.1.06 the OP informed the Complainant that there was no fault found in the meter reading of the Complainant and asked for clearance of the bill dt.5.7.05 and all outstanding bills. On 7.2.06 the Complainant paid all the outstanding bills as directed by the OP. On 27.2.06 the Complainant requested the SDE (Commercial) BSNL to cancel the existing telephone No.2240457 by replacing with a new number as the Complainant was encountering frequent faulty functioning of the telephone line. There was no response from the OP and the telephone line of the Complainant was disconnected on February 2006. ON 2.5.06 the Complainant wrote a letter to the OP for restoration of the telephone line. A reminder was issued on the 5.5.06. Lastly, on 30.8.06 a pleader's notice was issued to the OP reiterating that the telephone line was disconnected since February 2006 but the bills were being sent regularly by the OP despite which the OP failed to look after and rectify the complaint of the Complainant which amounted to deficiency of service and negligence of duty on the part of the OP. The Complainant prayed before the Forum to :

(2.) THE OP filed its show cause on 29.11.07 stating inter alia that the faults alleged by the Complainant were due to mechanical snags, that the bills of the telephone No.2240457 had been prepared/recorded through the computer indicating the number dialed, the time and duration of the calls made and that the application dated 29.8.05 of the Complainant was processed but due to non -availability of indicator, changing of telephone number could not be done at that time.

(3.) BESIDES the Complainant, 3(three) witnesses were examined by the OP's namely, Shri G.L. Hati, DE(Operation and Commercial) BSNL, Shri Paritosh Choudhury, Sr. Accounts Officer (TR) of BSNL and Shri S.K. Deb, SDO, BSNL.