B.K.CHAWLA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint and other materials on the record is that the complainant was a Government servant who retired on 30th June, 1984. He was resident of 82/2, Ganj Road, Shimla and user of residential telephone No 3148 since December, 1975. The telephone number was subsequently changed to 5678 and again changed to 2193. He further alleged that the same telephone number was installed at the residence of Chief Accounts Officer of the Telecommunication Department Itself later on. His further case is that the complainant was billed not only for the use of the telephone by him but also for the use made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel telephone which was installed in his residential house. As will be evident from pages 51 to 61 of the Telecom Telephone Directory 1987 and pages of the H. P. Telecom Supplementary Telephone Directory 1989 and page 149 of the Government of Himachal Pradesh Official Directory 1989 -90. 2 The complainant went on deputation out of India in Nepal. His telephone was disconnected in advance even before his family left Shimla to join the complainant. Vide bills of the telephone Department dated 16 -11 -1981 to 25 -12 -1981. the complainant was billed for calls including one call for New Delhi. When the complainant contacted T. D. E.s office, the bills were taken back from him These calls must have been made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel connection of the telephone No. 5678, Again vide bills dated 1 -11 -1987 (during the period when the S. T D operated), the complainant was over billed to Rs 60 out of the total number of calls for Rs. 200 when the complainant made representation to the Department on 10 -11 -1987 the same was reduced from Rs. 2(0 to Rs. 133.

(2.) Here also the entire calls must have been made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel telephone of the game number. Here also, one call was for New Delhi.

(3.) Fed up with the wrong and excessive billing by the Department, the complainant applied to the Department for S. T. D. ban on 27 -9 -1985. No action was however taken on that application and remained pending for 4 years On receipt of the highly excessive and imaginary bills, the complainant again applied for S. T. D ban This request was accepted after 8 months. The complainant continued to be penalised so far for no fault of his