TELECOM DISTRICT (GENERAL MANAGER), HISAR Vs. USHA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the impugned order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent -complainant, direction has been given to the appellant -opposite party to refund Rs. 9,810 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. In addition Rs. 2,000 has been awarded as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

(2.) IN order to decide the controversy raised in the appeal few facts need to be noticed. In terms of the agreement dated 7.10.1992 and another agreement dated 21.11.1992, the complainant became franchisee/licensee of the opposite party for running STD/ISD, PCO. The PCO was initially installed at Nagori Gate, Hisar from where it was shifted to Arya Complex, Balsmand Road, Hisar in the month of Janurary, 1996. The complainant was charged bill of Rs. 1,700 for the month of February, 1996 for 13 days which included Rs. 938 in excess as the opposite party could be charged only Rs. 762 from 17.2.1996 to 29.2.1996 at the average minimum charges of Rs. 58.62 per day. Thereafter, another bill of Rs. 7,083 for the period from 1.8.1996 to 15.8.1996 was received by the complainant, which too was excessive because the average bill for the previous six months had never been more than Rs. 1,230 for 15 days. The details of the previous bills for the six months have been given in Para No. 2(b) of the complaint. In this manner, the opposite party had charged Rs. 5,953 in excess from the complainant. The complainant further received a reading report of Rs. 3,593 for 5 days for the period 1.11.1996 to 5.11.1996, whereas the average bill was never more than Rs. 100 per day, as detailed in Para No. 2(c)(i) of the complaint. Forced by the above stated circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 938+5953+2919 and Rs. 10,000 on account of mental agony, tension, loss of livelihood income, in all Rs. 19,810 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the payment and the excess payment till the date of payment.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite party. The preliminary objection with regard to the entertainment of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) was raised. In addition pleas of want of cause of action and the complainant having not exhausted the remedy available under the Indian Telegraph Act and Rules were also taken. On merits it was stated that after the connection bearing STD PCO No. 33629 was restored on 17.2.1996, the PCO remained under the custody of the complainant. They justified the demand of Rs. 1,700 made in the bill for the month of February, 1996 as per terms of the agreement. It was further stated that the bill mentioned in the complaint is dated from 16.2.1996 to 15.8.1996 of Arya Complex, Hisar whereas the bills of earlier STD PCO at Nagori Gate, Hisar were not shown by the complainant. Thus, they maintained that the bill has been issued as per meter reading of the Exchange because the consumer was having STD facility and in terms of the agreement the complainant was required to pay minimum charges to the opposite parties. Thus, they prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint with the following observation: