UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRATIBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) dated 8.1.2003 in Complaint Case No.505 of 1999, Pratibha V/s. Union of India, through General Manager, Telecom, Telephone Department.

(2.) The complaint in nutshell is that the complainant had telephone No.547438 with STD facility installed in her premises i. e. House No.1129-A, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh on 4.7.1998. From day one the dynamic locking facility on this phone did not operate and the complainant brought this to the notice of the O. P. vide three letters dated 28.8.1995, 16.9.1995 and 4.12.1995, appended as Annexures C-1 to C-3 with the complaint, but the problem was not rectified. Later on 21.3.1997 someone from the Telecom Department called to check up if this telephone was working satisfactorily and if the telephone connection had STD facility. After the complainant replied that the STD facility was available, the phone was disconnected. From this date onwards, the complainant avers that her telephone used to remain dead from 5 p. m. to 8 p. m. and suspected that the telephone was being misused during this period. Vide her letter dated 27.3.1997, the complainant apprised General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh of the above and sought his assistance to help her. Subsequently, the complainant received her bill dated 1.7.1997 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. On receipt of the bill, the complainant vide Annexure C-5, intimated the O. P. that the bill received was much higher than her normal bill of Rs.1,600/- which indicated that her telephone had been misused. She also requested investigation of the matter and rectification of the bill. The O. P. vide Annexure C-6 gave the complainant a rebate of ISD calls amounting to Rs.8,628/- and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.1,372/-. However, vide bills dated 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 the complainant again received bills for Rs.10,407/- and Rs.7,892/- respectively. On 9.12.1997 the complainant again wrote to the O. P. , vide Annexure C-16, that the bills contained charges for ISD calls whereas she had never applied for the ISD facility on her telephone. Also fearing misuse of STD facility in the absence of dynamic locking, she got the STD facility disconnected. The O. P. was requested to look into the matter of misuse of her phone connection and was also informed that to harass her the department had disconnected her telephone. To substantiate her case of misuse of telephone, the complainant has annexed many telephone bills subsequent to disconnection of STD facility wherein her bills have ranged from Rs.1,750/- to Rs.418/- for one billing cycle. The O. P. department informed the complainant vide Annexure C-18 that after investigation it has been found that the bills dated 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 were found to be correct. In response the complainant vide Annexure C-19 and Annexure C-20 intimated the O. P. that whereas in the bill dated 1.7.1997 rebate against ISD calls was allowed and the same had not been done in the bills dated 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 and requested the O. P. to look into the matter and correct the bills. The complainant has further contended that not only the bills dated 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 were not rectified, the O. P. department has cancelled the rebate granted for ISD calls in the bill dated 1.7.1997 and the department is seeking payment of full amount of all the three disputed bills i. e. dated 1.7.1997, 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 whereas the O. P. is not entitled to charge her for ISD calls and for this deficiency in service, she prayed for bills of July, September and November, 1997 to be cancelled and payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and costs of the complaint. She also prayed that the O. P. be directed not to disconnect her telephone for non-payment of the bills in dispute.

(3.) The O. P. submitted that only one complaint made regarding the locking of STD facility was received by the department and on 9.10.1995 O. P. No.1 issued instructions to provide STD Dynamic Lock Facility on the telephone. Thereafter no further complaint was received from the complainant in this regard. The O. P. also denied that telephone of the complainant remained dead from 5 p. m. to 8 p. m. every day after 21.3.1997 and that nobody from the department made any inquiry from the complainant on that day. It was also denied that the telephone of the complainant was misused by any official of the department. The O. P. also submitted that rebate on ISD calls amounting to Rs.8,628/- was given only provisionally and on inquiry when no metering defect was found the complainant was directed to pay the full amount of bills dated 1.9.1997 and 1.11.1997 along with this provisional rebate allowed earlier. It was also submitted by the O. P. that this matter was referred to Telephone Adalat but the complainant did not attend the Adalat and hence the complainant has no case for any relief. The defence of the O. P. is that the complainant was rightly charged for the calls made from her telephone and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Department.