ACCOUNTS OFFICER Vs. SAI INTERNATIONAL TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein who is a travel agent, is having a telephone connection No.5925 with S. T. D. facility and later on some time in April 1990, the telephone number was changed from 5925 to 8678. But so far as this case is concerned, the telephone number during the relevant period is 5925. The travel agent, that is, the complainant has also another telephone connection bearing No.5708 under O. Y. T. scheme, for which, he had deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 28.10.87. Alleging that usually he is getting bills between Rs.2,000/- and Rs.6,000/- and that in the month of 1.7.1989 he got the bill for Rs.1,828/- for 1.9.89 Rs.8,930/- and for 1.11.89 Rs.11,232/- which are far excessive than the usual bills and that such excessive bills can only be either due to mechanical defect in the telecom system and also due to malpractices. He claimed for directions to revise the bills dated 1.7.89,1.9.89and 1.11.89 by deducting the said bills for sum not exceeding Rs.450/- each or any reasonable amount; (2) to direct the respondent to refund the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- paid by the complainant towards O. Y. T. (3) and to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.

(2.) The opposite party filed a counter stating that the calls are correctly recorded by the meter and the charges are not excessive. It was also stated that necessary investigation was made into the complaint and it was found by the Director of the tele-communications that there was no defect.

(3.) So far as the bill dated 1.7.89 is concerned, the complainant did not question the same. Therefore, the District Forum rejected the relief in regard to that bill. So far as the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 are concerned, the District Forum after taking into consideration the earlier bills, felt that the two bills issued were excessive and that, herefore, directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,500/- for the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 each. With regard to the O. Y. T. deposit, the District Forum directed the refund of Rs.4,595/- after deducting the charges for the calls made. It did not grant any relief with regard to the claim of Rs.10,000/- and rejected the same and awarded costs of Rs.250/-.