SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEPHONES Vs. P S JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant received a bill on 19.9.1996 for Rs.2,100/- wherein the rent was claimed for the period from 31.3.1995 to 31.8.1996 whereas the telephone was installed only on 16.6.1995. Out of the sum of Rs.8,000/- paid by the complainant under the OYT Scheme, the bill amount of Rs.2,100/- was adjusted leaving the credit balance of Rs.6,020/-. The complainant was not served with any notice of demand. But, however, a reminder was sent to the complainant to make a payment of Rs.456/- and requiring the complainant to make payment before 15.4.1997. The complainant paid the amount accordingly but despite the same, the service was disconnected. Therefore, the complainant has sought for reconnection, render proper and true account for bills submitted to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost.

(2.) The opposite party contended that the allegation that the telephone was installed on 16.6.1995 is false. The telephone was installed on 31.3.1995 itself and the bill was claimed for the period from 31.3.1995 to 31.8.1996. It is true that the sum of Rs.2,100/- was adjusted from the deposit. After verification, it was found a sum of Rs.456/- was still due. A reminder was sent requiring him to pay on or before 7.4.1997. The allegation that the reminder was received by the complainant only on 8.4.1997 is not true. It is true that the complainant met the J. E. , Telephones, Pandalur and he issued a demand note directing the complainant to make payment on or before 15.4.1997. Since the complainant has not intimated the opposite party about the alleged payment of Rs.456/-, the telephone was disconnected on 16.4.1997. The complainant has not asked for reconnection for more than six months. There is no deficiency in service.

(3.) The Lower Forum directed the opposite party to grant connection without charging any amount and further directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost.