VIRENDRA KUMAR HANDA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act" hereinafter) the complainant-appellant questions the correctness and legality of the order dated 16.6.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.202/89 by which the complaint was dismissed. Facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noticed. The complainant-appellant is a subscriber of telephone No.68717. He received a telephone bill dated 1.11.1988 for Rs.3,254/- mentioning 3345 as gross local calls. After the receipt of the bill, the complainant submitted a representation to the General Manager, Telecom Department, requesting him to give a revised bill in the light of the bills received by him from 1.11.1987 to 1.9.1988. It was stated by him that he had informed the Department in regard to the misuse of his telephone by third party outside his residence. Thereupon a revised bill for Rs.500/- was given to the complainant which was deposited by him. Thereafter a revised bill for Rs.2,728/- was sent to the complainant mentioning that amount of 3000 calls kept under dispute. As nothing was done the complainant submitted a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur which was registered on 1.6.1989. The complainant submitted copies of the letters and photostat copies of the bills in support of the complaint. The opposite party-respondent contested the complaint by filing version of the case dated 7.7.1989. It was stated that telephone is being used from 3.2.1983 and there was STD facility. A complaint was submitted by the complainant-appellant on 7.11.1988 in respect of the bill dated 1.11.1988. On this Rs.2,728/- was kept under dispute and order for enquiry was made. The complainant was directed to deposit the balance of the amount of the bill. According to the opposite party the bill dated 1.11.1988 was for the period 30.8.1988 to 15.10.1988 and during this period the complainant had availed of STD facility. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the bill dated 1.11.1988 and it was found that there was no technical defect in the instrument and the complainant was informed accordingly. The complainant got the STD facility discontinued from 10.11.1988 and thereafter investigation was again made and it was noticed that thereafter the use of the telephone was less. Besides this the telephone of the complainant was kept under the observation from 16.12.1988 to 24.12.1988 and it was found that the complainant has been using it properly and at the request of the complainant, telephone number was changed. It was stated that during the period before the bill dated 1.11.1988 the complainant has been availing of the STD facility and according to the distance to which the call is made reading was recorded. It was submitted that the complainant may be directed to deposit the amount that was kept under dispute i. e. Rs.2,728/-. The opposite party submitted order sheet of the Department dated 28.1.1989, enquiry reports of the Revenue Branch and enquiry reports JP TRI dated 13.12.1988. The complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint. The opposite party respondent besides submitting the photostat copies stated hereinabove neither filed any affidavit nor produced any evidence. The District Forum heard the arguments on 14,6.1990 and passed the impugned order, as stated above, on 16.6.1990. It dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

(2.) We heard Mr. M. R. Singh vi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. U. D. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondent and carefully considered the memo of appeal, order under appeal and the record. The District Forum has recorded in the order that the complainant has availed of the STD facility and that he had submitted that his telephone was misused by third person. It found that according to the investigation there was no mechanical defect in the instrument. It was of the opinion that the bill is prepared on the basis of the readings recorded in the meter and if the telephone has been misused, the Department has no concern. In view of this it dismissed the complaint. It appears that the District Forum assumed wrong facts as appears from the following in the order under appeal :

(3.) The assumption made by the District Forum in respect of Rs.3,000/- is wrong for the simple reason that the complainant-appellant has disputed the amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is clearly borne out from the following in the complaint : "now I have to request your honour kindly to ask the Telephone Deptt. not to send a revised bill of Rs.3,000/-. Instead they should adjust this amountby writing off it"