JUNIOR TELECOM ENGINEER KUNKURI Vs. GANGA RAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 30.10.2003 in Complaint No.49/1999 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter called the 'district Forum' for short) directing that the appellant shall pay to the complainant/respondent No.1 the difference of excess charges recovered for the telephone calls made by the complainant on 26.2.1999 and 24.5.1999 and that they should also pay to the complainant, compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 12% p. a. payable from 22.9.1999 as also Rs.2,500/- as cost of the complaint. Certain other directions in connection with unfair trade practice adopted by the PCO/std operator have also been given.

(2.) Indisputably respondent No.2 is operating STD/pco centre at Kunkuri, District Jaspur under the licence issued by the appellant Telephone department. The complainant averred that he had made certain calls from the STD/pco Centre run by respondent No.2 on 26.2.1999. Respondent No.2 realised more charges towards the said calls from the complainant. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint with the appellant No.1 on 27.2.1999 and copy thereof was sent to Divisional Engineer, Raigarh. The complainant further averred that despite the complaint as above, no action was taken against the STD operator/respondent No.2. The complainant further averred that similary on 24.5.1999 excess charges again were recovered from him when he made a call from the STD/pco centre of respondent No.2. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with the appellant on 28.5.1999. Subsequently the complaint was followed up by a registered letter dated 29.5.1999. According to the complainant no inquiry was made by the appellants. Therefore, the complainant sent reminder letter on 17.6.1999. It was further averred that by the appellant's letter dated on 21.6.1999, the complainant was simply intimated that inquiry was in progress. However, the result of inquiry was never communicated to the complainant. It was also averred that though the complainant pursued the matter constantly, he was not intimated as to what action was being taken by the appellant department against respondent No.2. The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum.

(3.) The appellant though admitted that the STD/pco Centre, Kunkuri was run by respondent No.2 and that the excess amount as alleged by the complainant was recovered from him, by respondent No.2. It was averred that on inquiry, it was revealed that excess charges were recovered from the complainant, on account of mechanical defect in the STD instrument. It was also averred that though respondent No.2 on the appellant's advice tried to refund the excess charges recovered from the complainant but he refused to accept the same. It was also averred by the appellants that letters dated 21.6.1999 was sent to the complainant intimating that the inquiry was being made. It was also averred that the matter was directed to be enquied into by Sub-Divisional Engineer, Pathalgaon who directed his Jr. Officer to make inquiry. The said Jr. Officer reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Engineer on 29.7.1999. According to the report of the said inquiry, there was some defect in the monitor of the PCO which was got rectified by respondent No.2 through Raj Enterprises, Bilaspur. Further averments of the appellants were that Jr. Engineer, Kunkuri, intimated the result of the said inquiry and the fact of defect in monitor to the complainant on telephone and also directed respondent No.2 to refund excess amount realised from the complainant. However, the complainant refused to accept the excess amount. Appellant further averred that defect in Monitor was got rectified after the complaint was lodged with the appellants and that there was no default on the part of the appellants. It appears that respondent No.2 did not file its written version of the complaint, as has also been mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order.