TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 1.1.2001 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the Telephone Department was directed to make necessary correction in the bills dated 30.4.1996 and 1.6.1996 and after issue of the revised bill, the amount of Rs.4,283/- deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the revised bill and to refund the amount deposited in excess. The appellant was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Anil Kumar had got a telephone No.425047 installed at his residence in 1992. It was with STD facility. It is alleged that the complainant has been regularly paying the bills. He has alleged that he is in service and none of his family members are engaged in any business. He uses his telephone casually and keeps the STD locked. It is alleged that he received a bill on 30.4.196 for a sum of Rs.3,153/-. He further received a bill on 1.6.1996, which was for a sum of Rs.1,130/-. Both the bills were excessive. He has not used the STD facility. The calls shown to have been made by him were wrong. For the correction of the bills, he contacted the officials of the Telephone Department and moved several applications but he was not heard. It is alleged that this is deficiency in service of the Telephone Department. He has further alleged that his average bill ranged between Rs.250/- to Rs.300/-. He has given details of all his bills from January 1993 to February 1996 of continuous 3 years. The complainant has made a request for the details of the meter reading on 24.4.1996 but he was not given any reply. It is further alleged that no action has been taken by the Telephone Department on the applications of the complainant regarding the revision of the bills. He has also given an application in Saharanpur Office but it was not heard. Looking the attitude of the Telephone Department, the complainant applied for disconnection of his STD facility on 3.7.1996 and that application was also not attended. This all shows the deficiency in service of the Telephone Department. He has deposited the amount of two bills under protest and has claimed compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.2,400/-.

(3.) The opposite party contested the complaint and alleged that the bill of Rs.3,153/- dated 1.4.1996 is perfectly correct. There is no mistake in it. It is further alleged that the complainant has been using the STD facility and it is only on that user the bill has gone to such an amount and the complainant is bound to pay that amount. Regarding the bill dated 1.6.1996, the opposite party said that this bill is perfectly correct. Regarding the complaint of the complainant for inquiry, it is alleged by the Telephone Department that the equipments were examined and were found correct. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite party, Telephone Department. It was further alleged that if there was dynamic lock system, the complainant should have locked the telephone to ensure that it is not being misused by anybody. It was alleged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.