Business Letter:

SLT’s arbitrary disconnection under the pretex of non settlement of bills

I wish to refer to my letter in the Financial Times on Sunday August 26, 2007, under the heading “Court case and SLT red notice”, where I requested the Consumer Affairs Authority and the Consumer Association of Sri Lanka, to safeguard the rights of SLT customers, until the SLT refund the overcharged amounts due to them, as SLT Kept on threatening customers by sending red notices.

The SLT, according to Court of Appeal Judgement of July 25, 2005, the tariff increase effective from September 1, 2003, as being unlawful and ordered SLT to refund the excessive charges.

The SLT has disconnected the telephone service of this writer under the pretex of non-payment of bills, which is a high handed act of the SLT, before the SLT carryout the recent order of the Supreme Court, which has to workout the amount due to each customer and include it in the November 2007 invoices SLT disconnected my telephone connection on October 26 for having Rs. 5753/57 outstanding for only five months.

A lady officer from SLT called me on October 26 morning and informed me that there is a balance outstanding and would be liable to disconnect automatically.

I told the officer not to disconnect as the SLT owes me, by way of refund of overcharged money due for 10 months according to the Supreme Court order.

Repeatedly I told her not to disconnect the connection.

By 11.00 a.m. the outgoing facilities were disconnected and by noon even the incoming facilities too were disconnected. Now my telephone is dead. A large number of telephones has been disconnected in this manner.

I did not want to settle the bills until the SLT refunded the amounts overcharged from the subscribers. Even the amounts due to us are reflected in our November 2007 invoices as ordered by the Supreme Court. The SLT would not refund any money, but would set off against our monthly bills.

Therefore I wanted the full amount due to me be set off against the amount I have withheld payment and settled whatever the amount I have to pay.

The disconnection and charging a re-connection charge before the SLT carries out Supreme Court order of November 2007 is unreasonable and ingestible and appeal/request the authorities responsible to instruct the SLT to restore forthwith the supplies of the writer and the others, whose connection were disconnected under the prtext of non-payment of bills.

This act of the SLT could be treated as violation of Fundamental Rights of the customers. Is there any Organisation which could safeguard our rights?

I have already addressed a letter to the Regional Telecommunication Officer (Colombo Central) SLT, and faxed on October 30, requesting to restore the supplies without any charges. So far I have not received any acknowledgement. Will the SLT. CEO take prompt action?

The Legal Aid Commission, and the Organisation of Professional Association of Sri Lanka (OPA) must come forward and assist the affected SLT telephone subscribers. Consumer Affairs Authority’s participation is highly appreciated.

A.Y.L.U. Marikkar
Colombo 12