JOITARAM ISHVARDAS PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 24th March, 2003 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant has moved this Commission against the order of the dismissal of the Complaint No.277 of 1996. The complainant, now aged around 85 years, challenged the impugned bills dated 11.12.1994 and 11.2.1995 for two periods: (1) for the period 27.9.1994 to 25.11.1994 and (2) for the period 25.11.1994 to 25.1.1995, along with rental charges and service tax added in the said disputed bills. In the first bill gross calls have been shown as 4210 and the charge is Rs.5,756. In the second bill gross calls have been shown as 3740 and the charge is Rs.5,090. It was the complainant's case before the learned Forum that during the year 1987 complainant had occasion to write to the opponent Telecom District to bar the S. T. D. facility. The opponent Telecom District did not bar the S. T. D. facility as also did not inform the complainant about what action was taken on the application given by the complainant. According to him, usually his bills would never have exceeded the rental charge, inasmuch as the minimum permissible calls would be the highest limit of the bills. He, therefore, approached the learned Forum with the aforesaid complaint while setting out all the particulars regarding his grievances.

(2.) The opponent Telecom District resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the disputed bills mostly represented S. T. D. calls. The complainant, however, alleged that there was misuse of his telephone line. He had made grievances with regard to both the telephone bills before the opponent Telecome District. Learned Forum has referred to the investigation made by the Divisional Engineer and come to the conclusion that the bills in question were in order. That is how the complainant is before this Commission.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant, would submit that there was no occasion for the complainant to use the S. T. D. facility on either of the aforesaid two telephone billing periods on any day. He was under the impression that there was no S. T. D. facility continued in his telephone. It is in this respect that there does not appear to be detailed investigation. Besides, on a reference to the details given by the opponent Telecome District it would clearly appear that there is a spurt noted on one single day on each of the occasions and that would go to indicate that on one single day i. e. , on 20.12.1994 there is noting of 4255 calls and on 5.1.1995 there is a spurt of 3447 calls. This was to be investigated by the opponent Telecome District but no explanation is coming forth with regard to these calls. Besides, there is no explanation with regard to what transpired in respect of the complainant's application for barring the S. T. D. facility. It would appear that both these vital aspects appear to have been missed at the hands of the learned Forum. In that view of the matter the impugned order would deserve to be set aside with appropriate direction to issue average bills for the period of disputed billing period, prior to the first disputed bill for both the aforesaid disputed bills.