LAWS(NCD)-1993-8-132

SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEPHONE Vs. MANOJ KUMAR HASARIA

Decided On August 27, 1993
Sub-Divisional Officer Telephone Appellant
V/S
MANOJ KUMAR HASARIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 4.3.92 passed by the District Forum, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.10 of 1991. The appellant before this Commission was opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The detail facts of the case are not required for the disposal of this appeal. It will suffice to mention that the complainant filed a case before the District Forum alleging that the telephone bills in question sent to him by the Opp. Party in respect of his telephone No.2201 are inflated and excessive. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version stating inter alia that the complainant has got his own meter which is sealed and kept. under lock, that the bills in question sent to the complainant had been sent in accordance with the meter readings and that as the bills were not paid his telephone connection was disconnected. It has been further averred by the opposite party that there was no defect in the meter and therefore the bills sent to the complainant are correct and not inflated. The complainant examined himself before the District Forum on oath in support of his case.

(3.) The District Forum on taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the complainant reduced the telephone bills for STD calls from 15.9.92 to 15.11.92 to Rs.800.00, from Rs.2352/- bringing down the bill for that period to Rs.1678/- instead of Rs.2228.00. Similarly it has reduced the bill for 16.11.90 to 15.1.91 to Rs.800/- from Rs.3279/- and the trunk call bills for that period to Rs.453/- from Rs.1129/-. Thus bringing down the bill for that period to Rs.1453/- and similarly it has reduced the bill for the period 15.1.92 to 15.3.92 to Rs.1716/- instead of 'rs.3418/-. The District Forum has also awarded Rs.800.00 as damages for wrongful disconnection of the telephone of the complainant and directed that this amount be deducted from the aforesaid bills payable by the complainant.