UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHATIA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.1994 whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (the Forum), cancelling the bills for Rs.68,829/- and Rs.21,270/-, issued by the appellant to the respondent consumer, directed the appellant to prepare the relevant bills afresh on the basis of average calls. The Forum further directed the appellant to replace the old telephone No.20043 for the new telephone number 23522 at the residence of the respondent.

(2.) The relevant facts are these : m/s. Bhatia and Company (respondent complainant) is the sole proprietorship of one Shri J. C. Bhatia and is engaged in business activities at Kota : Shri Bhatia besides having a number of telephones at his business establishment, had telephone No.20043 at this residence. But the telephone at his residence was not having the STD facility. The STD facility was available to him at telephone Nos.25314, 25308 and possibily on 25969, installed at his business establishment. He requested the appellant's office at Kota to supply him the STD facility on his telephone No.20043 at his residence. An application in that behalf (Ex.4) was submitted by him to Divisional Engineer, Department of Telephones, Kota, Rajasthan on 2.11.1992. The Department supplied the STD facility to him at his residence. However the process of providing STD facility to Shri Bhatia at his residence involved the change in the number of the telephone.

(3.) The case of the respondent Company as put forth by him before the Forum was that although STD facility in the telephone at his residence was provided to him by the appellant w. e. f.11.11.1992 but the number of his telephone from 20043 to 23522 was changed without any notice to him and for the first time a bill of Rs.68,829/- was given to him on 20.4.1993, payable by 1.5.1993. His grievance further was that the bill was defective in several respects and that bill pertaining to telephone No.20043 was also delivered to him for the same period. He attributed deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in sending him a bill for Rs.68,829/- in respect of phone No.23522 without giving any prior intimation to him about the change in the number of the telephone at his residence. It was also complained that the appellant further committed deficiency in service by disconnecting his telephone at the residence. He, therefore, prayed that the old telephone No.20043 be restored, the STD facility on telephone No.23522 be withdrawn, the bill for Rs.68,829/- be cancelled and an enquiry in respect of perparing a bill for excessive amount be made and he be paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation.