Kumari Ambika Singh vs General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset it is noted from the scrutiny-sheet put up by the Registry that there is a delay of 67 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay. Perusal of para 2 thereof shows that the application for certified copy was filed by the petitioner on 03.08.2010 and the certified copy was ready on 31.08.2010 but the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission did not tell about the final decision of the appeal by the State Commission to the petitioner on time. Besides this, the petitioner has submitted that consulting the Advocates at Delhi and Saharanpur took quite some time besides the time spent in translating some documents and signing of the Vakalatnama. The reasons put forth by the petitioner to justify the delay of more than 2 months as per the Registry and about 5 months from the date of the certified copy being ready, could hardly be considered as satisfactory or convincing. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. We have, however, looked into the merits as well.

THE dispute in this case pertains to the two mobile phone bills received by the complainant in respect of Mobile Phone No. 9412234354. It is not disputed that the petitioner / complainant who had taken the mobile connection under the student scheme requested the General Manager, BSNL, Saharanpur vide her application dated 20.05.2004 for withdrawal of the mobile phone service because she did not intend to continue it further. Accepting the request of the petitioner, the telephone authorities closed the mobile services with immediate effect. However, the complainant / petitioner received a bill dated 19.08.2004 for Rs.1,788/- in the month of August and likewise she received another bill dated 19.09.04 for Rs.1,888/-. It is not disputed that the second bill is not a different bill but for the amount of old bill of August 2004 alongwith an amount of Rs.100/- added on account of the non-payment of the earlier bill and hence the petitioner was required to pay the later bill of 19.09.04 totalling Rs.1888/-. According to the petitioner it was a wrong bill since she had already got her mobile connection stopped on 20.05.2004 and hence having failed to get a positive response to her representation from the telephone authorities approached the District Forum by lodging a consumer complaint against the respondent authorities. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the petitioner and gave substantial relief to the petitioner by quashing the disputed bill amount Rs.1888/- as also the earlier bill of Rs.1,788/- and also directed the respondent authorities to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for litigation expenses. THE OPs carried order of the District Forum before the State Commission in appeal which when heard by the State Commission found favour with it. Vide its impugned order the State Commission accordingly dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Forum. We have carefully gone through the order of the Fora below. THE State Commission while unsuiting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the disputed bills has observed as under:- Coming to the factual issue which has been raised before us in the instant appeal, we may observe that the complainant admittedly availed of her mobile phone services up to 20.05.2004 and it was obligatory for her to prove that she had paid her outstanding dues upto the said date. It would be relevant in this context to observe that the mobile phone bills are invariably raised from the first day up to the last day of every month and the details of the use are usually shown in the mobile phone bill. THEre is no challenge to her claim that she had paid her mobile phone bills up to 30.04.2004 but she has not made any payment regarding use of her mobile phone connection for the period commencing from May 1, 2004 to May 20, 2004. This duration clinches the whole dispute and whereas the appellant?s contention is that the complainant is yet to pay her bill for the period commencing from 01.05.2004 to 20.05.2004, the complainant simply says that she is not liable to pay the bills raised in the months of August and September, 2004. It is significant to note that after the complainant?s mobile phone was disconnected on 20.05.2004 the first bill for usage of mobile by the complainant for the period in dispute i.e, from 01.05.2004 to 20.05.2004 was raised on 19.08.2004 a copy whereof is Annexure 2/1 on record. Since there was no usage in the month of June, July or August the outstanding dues for the aforesaid period in dispute amounting to Rs.1,668.00 was shown as the previous balance in the first column itself and although as per the computer billing-system the billing period was shown from 19.07.2004 to 18.08.2004, it has no relevance to the said period except that delay payment charges of Rs.100.00 were shown at the right place thereby taking the total to Rs.1,788.00 Further, it is noteworthy that this amount of Rs.1,788.00 was shown as the previous balance in the succeeding bill dated 19.09.2004 a copy where of is Annexure 3/1 on record and since as per the agreement between the BSNL and the complainant the latter was liable to make payment of the late fees amounting to Rs.100.00, the total liability of the complainant was accelerated to Rs.1,888.00. In this way, the complainant was liable to make payment of the last bill of Rs.1,888.00 (Rs.1,688.00 for the mobile use in the duration between 01.05.2004 to 20.05.2004+ Rs.100.00 as the late fees in the month of August late fees of Rs.100.00 in the month of September). This liability has to be discharged by the complainant as she had used the mobile phone services provided to her in the relevant duration but with no obligation to pay the late payment fee. As a matter of fact, the BSNL must have issued the bill for recovery in the month of June 2004 and if there had been a default in payment on the part of the complainant, late fee should have been added. But the appellants did not send this bill in June or July rather served it in the month of August 2004. THEn a clarification should have been issued / sent for better understanding of the complainant that the substantive changes were meant for consumption of the mobile phone services from 01.05.2004 to 20.05.2004 and late fee charges should not have been levied as the complainant was not at fault but the BSNL authorities themselves sent the bill after two months of the phone being surrendered.? In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence in favour of the defence of the OP, the State Commission rightly allowed the appeal and no fault could be found with the finding of the State Commission through the impugned order. The District Forum obviously allowed the complaint based on wrong appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties before it. We find the impugned order of the State Commission as well-reasoned which does not leave any scope for our interference with the same while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. We further find that the State Commission has already given the relief which is due to the petitioner in respect of the payment of Rs.200/- on account of late fee charges, which obviously could not have been levied by the OP since they alone were to be blamed for sending the bill late. The revision petition bereft of any merit is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.