PARVEEN GUPTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 24.4.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.995 of 2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum ). The dispute relates to the alleged misuse of telephone No.577984 which has been issued in the name of the appellant Shri Parveen Gupta and was installed at S. C. O. No.20, Sector 11, Panchkula. It is alleged that the appellant was running the business with his partner Shri Rajinder Mittal. The said business was being run by the appellant and Shri Rajinder Mittal and the aforesaid telephone was being utilized in connection with the business. At the time when it was issued to the subscriber, the complainant/appellant it had no STD/isd facility. In June, 1997 the appellant shifted to chandigarh and he handed over the aforesaid telephone to OP No.4 Shri Rajinder Mittal, resident of House No.550, Sector 11, Panchkula and at present lodged in Central Jail, Ambala.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant was that the respondent No.4 Shri Rajinder Mittal in connivance with the staff of the Telephone Department and after forgoing the signatures of the appellant obtained the facility of STD/isd calls and then misused the same with the result that the appellant received a bill regarding the telephone showing arrears of Rs.1,97,874/-. It was alleged that the Telephone Department along with Shri Rajinder Mittal be directed and not to recover the aforesaid arrears of Rs.1,97,874/- or any other amount alleged due against the said telephone because of the fraud and further claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs.

(3.) The District Forum issued notice of the complaint case to the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed joint written statement contending, inter alia that the appellant had taken the said telephone for social and personal purpose and handed over the possession of the telephone to the respondent No.4 against department rules for business purpose. The telephone is installed in the name of the complainant and he is liable to pay the telephone bills whether used by Shri Rajinder Mittal, respondent No.4 or anybody else. It was also mentioned that the complainant had filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh and this fact had been concealed from the District Forum.