S D O TELEPHONE Vs. PREM RAJ GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hissar whereby a rebate of 2,000 calls has been granted to the respondent in the disputed bill and the appellant-department has been directed to revise the same accordingly.

(2.) Dr. Prem Raj Gaur is a senior citizen having retired since long from the department of Animal Husbandary, Punjab. In the complaint he averred that he was having the telephone facility since 1985 and till the 16th of July, 1991 his telephonic charges for the relevant period had never exceeded Rs.300/- only. However, to his surprise, he received the bill dated October 1,1991 for the period from 16th of July, 1991 to 15th of September, 1991 for the inordinately high amount of Rs.3,267/- which was patently erroneous. He strongly alleged that either the meter was defective or the telephone has been misused by the employees of the department. The firm case was that during most if not all of this period he was out of station and his house and telephone were locked. A complaint to the Telephone District Manager, Hissar afforded him no redressal, and consequently he resorted to the District Forum. The appellant-department in the written statement took up the plea that the excessive billing case of the complainant had been thoroughly examined but the competent authority had found no justification for the grant of any rebate. It was averred that the meter was checked on the 6th of September, 1991 and was found in good working order. The enquiry made by the technical staff was sought to be annexed to the written statement.

(3.) In the replication filed by the complainant, he stoutly struck to his gun and elaborated his complaint. In support thereof, he placed on record his own affidavit and also a detail of the payments of the telephone bill from June, 1985 to the 10th of September, 1991 which clearly indicated that barring the disputed period the telephonic charges had been confined to merely the rental therefor and within the range of permissible calls. The appellant-department has not chosen to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The District Forum in its somewhat brief order basically relied on its examination of the departmental file. It noticed there from that a rebate of 2000 calls had been suggested and recommended by the lower staff but was rejected by the competent authority without assigning any reason. Adopting the recommendation of the staff alone, the District Forum proceeded to grant the relief noticed at the very out-set.