SDO TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 31.5.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint are that telephone No.64745 was installed in the house of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) by the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) in September, 2000. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had received a bill for the month of October, i. e. , from 1.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 amounting to Rs.2,080/- in which the local call charges were added as Rs.1,938.80 p. It is alleged that the complainant was a simple villager and did not make any trunk calls or other calls except local calls within the area of his village. The other subscribers of the area received the bill for the above noted period amounting to Rs.200/- to Rs.300/-. The complainant was surprised to receive the bill. He went to the opposite party who admitted that the matter seemed to be defective. It was promised that he should make some payment of the bill and the excess amount shall be adjusted in future bills after correcting the meter. Surprisingly again the complainant received bill for the period from 31.10.2000 to 31.12.2000 amounting to Rs.1,656/- in which local call charges were shown as Rs.1,477/-. He had again gone to the opposite party with a complaint that the correction in the meter should be done but he was promised by the opposite party that he should make the payment of the bills, which would be adjusted in future bills. The complainant was a simple villager and had to pay these bills under pressure but with protest. It is then stated in the complaint that the complainant had again received a bill for the month of October, 2000 amounting to Rs.3,307/-. This was in addition to the bill already sent by the opposite party. This sum was also being claimed as local call charges. It was stated that the complainant rarely used the telephone since he had not any relative beyond District Gurdaspur and other subscribers whose meters were installed in his village and other villages around his village were receiving bills amounting to Rs.200/- to Rs.300/-. It is alleged in the complaint that there was a defect in the meter relating to the complainant and this fact was admitted by the opposite party also when the complainant had gone to the opposite party. So far the defect was not removed by the opposite party. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party was liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant after charging the rental charges and actual amount of local charges. Moreover the complainant could not be crippled to pay a sum of Rs.3,307/- which was being charged for the month of October, 2000, which in fact was the bill sent in addition to the bills already sent. Prayer was also made to remove the defective meter. The acts of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service according to the complainant. Ultimately a prayer was made that the bill amounting to Rs.3,307/- be withdrawn and the excess amount already paid by the complainant be refunded back to him and a direction was also sought to the opposite party to remove the defect in the meter.

(3.) Opposite party on notice filed written statement wherein it was stated that the complainant had no cause of action and thus the complaint was not maintainable. It was denied that three bills in dispute were excessive. It was pleaded therein that the bills had been issued to the complainant correctly on the basis of the correct meter reading. It was denied that the complainant had ever visited the office of the opposite party or that the opposite party admitted that the complainant was excessively billed. It was pleaded that the bills of the other telephone consumers in the village ranging between Rs.200/- and Rs.300/- was irrelevant. Other material pleadings of the complainant were controverted and it was stated that the complainant was billed correctly and the opposite party was not liable to refund anything or to withdraw the bill of October, 2000 for Rs.3,307/-. Ultimately it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.