TELECOM DEPT Vs. RUPA GURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had a telephone connection made available by the petitioner. Her average bills between March, 1997 to January, 1998 ranged to Rs. 265 to Rs. 846 per billing cycle, but then all of a sudden there was a sudden spurt and the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 32,892 for the period from 16.1.1998. to 15.3.1998 and another bill for Rs. 10,924 for the period from 16.3.1998. to 15.5.1998 and again from 16.7.1998. to 15.9.1998 the bill was issued for Rs. 1,572, this sudden spurt in the billing amount, was taken up with the petitioner but finding no satisfactory reply, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, cancelled the bills for the period from 16.1.1998 to 15.3.1998, 16.3.1998 to 15.5.1998 and 16.7.1998 to 15.9.1998, and the petitioner was directed to prepare the bills for this period on the basis of average amounts of the bills received during the period of 6 months preceding 16.1.1998. Petitioner was also directed to restore the telephone connection within 15 days of the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the bills and the details about the calls made on different dates including use of ISD. He drew our attention to the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, in which the complainant herself admitted that from 16.1.1998 to 15.3.1998, she made 22 calls out of total calls 159 allegedly to have been made by her and similarly for the period from 16.3.1998 to 15.5.1998, she made 36 calls out of 87 calls allegedly to have been made by her. Yet both the lower Forums went wrong in not allowing even the charges for the admitted calls. He also drew our attention to the application for getting the telephone connection wherein the complainant had asked for STD and ISD facility. In view of which both the lower Forums erred in passing the order they did, for the simple reason that the complainant would have been making STD, ISD calls for which she has to pay. The order passed by both the lower Forums needs to be set aside.