LAWS(NCD)-1992-11-50

TELECOM DISTT ENGINEER DHARAMSALA Vs. PRAN NATH MAHAJAN

Decided On November 02, 1992
TELECOM DISTT.ENGINEER, DHARAMSALA Appellant
V/S
PRAN NATH MAHAJAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Forum, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) passed an order in Complaint No. 18/90 Pran Nath Mahajan v. Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala and Another on 9.1.1991. The complainant before the District Forum had alleged that the bill for the period from 16th November, 1988 to 15th January, 1989, issued on 1st of February, 1989 for Rs. 3,086/- was excessive. On his representation of the 6th of February, 1989 the Telecom District Engineer split the bill : Rs. 1,494/- was required to be paid immediately and the balance Rs. 1,592/- was treated as under dispute to be investigated. On 7th March, 1990 the District Telephone Engineer rejected the subscribers' complaint of excessive billing and required him to deposit the balance amount. In June 1990, the District Forum directed the General Manager, H.P. Circle of P&T to review this bill. The General Manager, after review, came to the conclusion that there was no error in billing.

(2.) BEFORE the District Forum, the Appellant Telecom District Engineer submitted that the complaint regarding excessive billing had been investigated in detail at different levels and the meter had been kept under observation and thereafter he came to the conclusion that there was no over-billing. The Appellant further pointed out that the telephone has STD facility which explains the increase in number of local calls during the period under dispute and therefore, the complainant's representation was rejected.

(3.) THE respondent before the District Forum - the Telecom District Engineer went in appeal against the Order of the District Forum to the Himachal Pradesh State Commission. By the time State Commission became seized of this appeal, two of the learned members of the District Forum became members of the State Commission. Consequently, the President of the State Commission moved this National Commission for appropriate action. In view of the facts mentioned above, this Commission withdrew this case from the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh and decided to hear the same itself.