Y KRISHAN Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the District Forum-III dated the 29th December, 1998, passed in Complaint Case No.922/97 entitled Shri Y. Krishan and Anr. V/s. MTNL.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum averring therein that he is the subscriber of telephone No.6894175 and had received a bill for the billing cycle 1.10.1996 for the amount of Rs.2,945/-, pertaining to the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996. The total number of calls, shown in the said bill, were 2124 out of which local calls were shown to be 1840 which were excessive as compared to the previous bills received by the appellant/complainant. It was further stated by the complainant that he had lodged a complaint with regard to the said bill dated 1.10.1996 with the opposite party vide his letter dated 17.10.1996, followed by several reminders, but no reply was received from the end of the opposite party in response thereto. It was further stated by the appellant/complainant that his complaint regarding excess billing was not investigated by the respondent in accordance with the rules prescribed for investigating such complaints and as such there has been gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Another grievance of the appellant/complainant, as stated in his complaint, was that the bills for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and from 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997, did not contain the details of STD/isd calls or local calls made from his telephone and as such, he was unable to check whether the same were excessive or not and that the respondent, despite requests, had failed to supply the said details. It was, therefore, prayed by the appellant/complainant, in his complaint, that directions be issued to opposite party to revise the bills and the local call charges for the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996 be restricted to 300 calls only and call charges for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and from 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 should be limited to 659 local call charges only on average basis. The appellant/complainant had further prayed for compensation of Rs.1,500/- on account of mental harassment and agony as well as cost of the proceedings.

(3.) In the reply filed before the District Forum, the respondent/m. T. N. L. had denied the contentions of the appellant/complainant that the bill for the period from 16.7.1995 to 15.9.1996 was excessive as regards local calls. On the contrary, it had been stated that the respondent had complied with departmental instructions and after proper investigation, the bill dated 1.10.1996, issued to the appellant/complainant, as found to be correct. The respondent/m. T. N. L. had also denied the remaining allegations of the appellant/complainant and had prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.