MANGERAM DAULATRAM AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (Code for short) the appellant/original plaintiff has questioned the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 385 of 1983 passed by the City Civil Court Judge Ahmedabad on 23

(2.) Some material facts giving rise to the present appeal needs narration. M/s Daulatram Mangilal was allotted and installed a telephone No. 442340 in Ahmedabad at the residence of the appellant and the appellant-Mangeram Daulatram Agarwal is the sole proprietor of the said concern. The appellant who is the original plaintiff initiated the suit in the Trial Court for a declaration that the respondents/original defendants are not entitled to the amounts shown in the telephone bills in respect of the said telephone number for different periods. The said telephone came to be disconnected on the ground of non-payment of telephone bills. The plaintiff is also having two telephone connections at Calcutta bearing No. 357400 and 357401. The plaintiff received a notice for the disconnection of telephones at Calcutta on account of non-payment of telephone bills at Ahmedabad. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) The defendants appeared and resisted the suit of the plaintiff denying all the allegations. According to the contention of the defendants the complaints about excessive billing made were investigated into and no substance was found therein. On the contrary the department found that there was excessive use of STD facility made by the plaintiff for long distance calls at Bombay Calcutta Rajkot etc. The grievance of the plaintiff was personally examined by the General Manager Ahmedabad Telephones and no justification was found by him. The department also relied on the testing report and the documentary evidence of the department. It was pointed out by the department that during the period of observation it was found that the plaintiff used to call upto 30 minutes at various stations like Calcutta Bombay Madras etc. on STD. The report made by the department had shown that the meter registered 2040 calls during the said period of observation which came to average 250 calls per day. It was the defence of the department that there was no fault or any negligence on the part of the department and therefore the subscriber was liable to pay the bills as demanded. It was also contended by the department that the defendants are entitled to disconnect the plaintiffs any other telephone situated in any part of the country under various provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Rules.