JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER Vs. JULIA DAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kollam in O. P. No.433/ 92. The opposite parties are the appellants.

(2.) The complainant is a subscriber of telephone No.202 of Sasthamcotta. On 11.10.91 she was served with a bill for Rs.59386/- for the period from 26.7.91 to 25.9.91. On 22.10.91 she filed a complaint before the opposite parties stating that the bill is excessive and that it does not reflect the actual calls. On 24.10.91 a split bill was served on the complainant directing her to deposit Rs.370/-. That amount was remitted on 28.10.91. On 11.12.91 another bill was issued which was for the period from 26.9.91 to 25.11.91 for Rs.10745/-. In regard to this bill also a complaint was filed and a split bill for Rs.415/- was issued. The amount in this split bill was paid on 16.1.92. On 11.3.92 he was directed to pay the balance amount towards bill for Rs.10745/-. The complainant did not pay the amount and the telephone was disconnected on 25.3.92 The complainant was informed that the equipments are working properly. Thereafter she got Bill dated 11.2.92 for Rs.212/- and bill dated 11.4. .92 for Rs.230/-. These two bill amounts were also paid. She was ultimately given a bill for Rs.59386/- giving a rebate of 17,798 calls and the complainant was directed to remit Rs.39438/- towards that bill. This is after deducting the amount already paid. According to the complainant there was defect in the meter reading equipments She also alleged during the previous 6 months ,the maximum bill was only Rs.408/-. It is in those circumstances me complaint was filed.

(3.) Version was filed by the opposite party stating that the matter was investigated and the finding was communicated. It was also alleged that complainant was making ISD calls and metering was registering only actual use and no equipment fault was detected. Since the dues were not paid the phone was disconnected after notice. There is nothing to show that the complainant has not actually used the phone to the extent of calls metered. However, benefit of doubt was given, since there was a possibility of the line having remained undisconnected on finishing some international calls.