“There is no perversity in the findings recorded either by the District Commission or by the State Commission. The Petitioners have failed to substantiate the correctness of the bill raised by them by the corroborative evidence. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in a Revision Petition,” the commission said on September 9 and dismissed the revision petition.
The dispute arose when Khare, while visiting Nepal between January 12 and January 18, 2018, was billed Rs 1,75,427 on his mobile connection. He alleged that the amount was excessive and unsubstantiated, and approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Namchi, Sikkim, alleging deficiency in service.
Consumer challenged disputed bill
The district commission allowed Khare’s complaint and awarded him Rs 25,000 compensation. It also directed the service provider to activate his mobile number, withdraw the disputed bill, and issue a fresh bill containing details.
The service provider challenged the decision before the state consumer commission, Sikkim. After examining the matter, the state commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the district forum’s order.
The state commission noted that the call detail records relating to the January 2018 postpaid bill had not been furnished to Khare. It observed that a customer receiving a bill of Rs 1,75,427 for one month would be shocked and held that a consumer was entitled to know the basis of such a bill.
Story continues below this ad
The state commission further noted that the call detail records relied upon by the service provider were produced only when its written objection was filed. It said the records were produced through a person who had no personal knowledge about their preparation or contents.
Senior engineer’s crucial testimony
The evidence of the senior divisional engineer of the service provider became significant during the proceedings. The national commission said it had examined the officer’s complete statement after the petitioners’ counsel sought an opportunity to explain the state commission’s findings.
It found that neither the district commission nor the state commission had committed any jurisdictional error in reaching their conclusions based on the officer’s statement. The national commission had specifically sought assistance on this issue in its August 13 order.
When the matter was heard on September 9, the bench found that the officer could not support the assessment of the call detail records, despite being produced as a witness by the petitioners. The national commission ultimately found no perversity in the findings recorded by either consumer forum. It held that the petitioners had failed to substantiate the correctness of the disputed bill through corroborative evidence and found no ground to interfere in the revision proceedings.
Story continues below this ad
The revision petition was accordingly dismissed on September 9. The relief granted to Khare, hence, remained intact: withdrawal of the disputed Rs 1,75,427 bill, issuance of a fresh bill with details, activation of his mobile number and payment of Rs 25,000 compensation.
Takeaway
Consumers should not simply accept an unusually high or disputed bill without checking how the amount was calculated. Ask for an itemised bill and the records supporting the charges, raise the dispute in writing, preserve bills, payment records and correspondence, and seek a clear response from the service provider.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Do not miss out on these stories:
Man denied refund after Rs 170 ‘stuck’ in milk app wallet, wins over 15x payout
Story continues below this ad
Cancer patient dies after ‘delayed care’, hospital, 2 doctors to pay Rs 5 lakh
Man wins Rs 1 lakh consumer payout after restaurant ‘hikes’ per head buffet price
