P G M T Vs. JAWAHAR LAL PABREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against order dated 12.12.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No.100 of 2001. filed by respondent/complainant, Sh. J. L. Pabreja.

(2.) The respondent/complainant, Sh. J. L. Pabreja is having a telephone No.614136 and was having STD facility. In the month of August, 2000, he received the disputed bill dated 11.8.2000 for a sum of Rs.10,025/-. The amount of this bill was much higher than the bills which he had been receiving in the past which ranged between Rs.175/- and Rs.1,569/-. The respondent apprehended the misuse of his telephone and consequently requested the appellants/o. Ps. to withdraw the STD facility so as to avoid its further use. However, the STD facility was not withdrawn. Rather a reply was sent to him by the appellants, which was quite irrelevant insofar as the request of withdrawal of STD facility was concerned. In the meantime, the respondent/complainant received another bill for a sum of Rs.4,390/- which again was on the higher side and the complainant made representation to the appellant department which failed to pay any heed to it. The telephone was ultimately disconnected in the third week of September, 2000. The printouts of the calls made from the aforesaid telephone, while it was having STD facility for the period covered by the two bills showed that several STD calls were made to Hyderabad and Bangalore and that too in the peak hours. According to the complainant he had no friend or relative in either of these stations of Hyderabad or Bangalore. The complainant/respondent, it was alleged, was a class three employee working at Chandigarh and he off and on used to contact his parents, who are staying at Sonepat. In the background of these facts, the respondent/complainant prayed that O. Ps. be directed to pay compensation @ Rs.2,000/- p. m. for deficiency on its part and depriving him of the facility of telephone and further amount of Rs.21,000/- on account of harassment and costs of the case.

(3.) In the reply, the appellants/o. Ps. took the stand that the matter was thoroughly investigated and no mistake was found in the complaints which were rejected as per letter dated 8.2.2000. It was contended that the complainant was having dynamic locking facility and he could use the same. The complainant himself was negligent and he cannot hold the department i. e. appellant/o. Ps. responsible for that. The disconnection of the telephone took place due to non-payment of the bills aforesaid. A total sum of Rs.16,060/- was said to be due from the complainant.