GAYTRI DEVI AGGARWAL Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>O.P.DWIVEDI J.</DJG> This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby respondent's suit for Rs.2,55,179/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest was decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that on 20th May, 2002 the respondent/MTNL (plaintiff in the suit) filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,26,629/- against the appellant herein (defendant in the suit) towards arrears due against the telephone no. 2434070 which was originally alloted to Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, son of the appellant at 9542/11, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi with STD facility. After the death of the original subscriber Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, the telephone was transferred in the name of Smt. Gyatri Devi Aggawal/appellant herein on her application. This transfer was affected on 9th February, 1990. From July, 2000 to December, 2000 respondent/MTNL issued the following bills to the appellant:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_100_AD(DEL)3_2006Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The appellant however, failed to clear the aforesaid bills despite demands. The telephone was ultimately disconnected on 4th December, 2000 for non-payment of the bills. It was pleaded in the plaint that after giving some adjustments, a sum of Rs.2,55,169/- was found due against the appellant which she failed to clear despite notice dated 16th June, 2001. Plaintiff/respondent thereupon filed this suit for Rs.3,26,629/- comprising Rs.2,55,179/- being the principal amount due against the appellant plus Rs. 71,450/- being interest @ 14% per annum upto the date of filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the appellant. Her objection was mainly a'gainst two inflated bills, one dated 9th November, 2000 for the amount of Rs.38,124/- and other dated 9th December, 2000 for the amount of Rs.2,14,478/-. The defence taken by her in the written statement was that a perusal of these two inflated bills shows that most of the telephone calls were made to numbers beginning with 0900 i.e. International Chatting Numbers (PRM Calls). According to the appellant, she and her husband, both of whom are Senior Citizens had never made these calls. According to her, she along with her husband and other family members were residing at H-25A, Shakarpur, Delhi upto September, 2000 and thereafter for most of the time, they were out of Delhi. It is pleaded that the appellant or her husband had never used the telephone in question for commercial purpose and never dialed numbers beginning with 0900 (PRM calls). Appellant's plea in this regard is that her telephone Iine has been tampered with/diverted by some officials/ linesmen of the respondent/MTNL to oblige someone who misused it by dialing international chatting numbers and that is why her telephone was not disconnected despite non-payment of the bills from July, 2000 onwards. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issued were framed by learned ADJ on 25th March, 2003 : -