TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. PREM PRAKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 9.6.95 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East District, whereby the Forum accepted the complaint filed by the respondent against the disconnection of his telephone No.3114 and certain other reliefs.

(2.) Respondent is a consumer in respect of telephone No.3114. He made three complaints regarding local calls included in bills dated 1.10.90, 1.12.90 and 1.2.91 for Rs.387/-, Rs.326/-and Rs.256/-respectively. In reply, the Telephone Department sent three letters dated 16.4.91 intimating him that his complaints had been investigated thoroughly on the basis of the facts available with the department and it was revealed that the alleged excess metering was not due to any technical or other faults and as such he was not entitled to any rebate. Duplicate bills were sent alongwith this letter requiring the respondent to make early payment in order "to avoid disconnection. " However, disconnection had already been made earlier on 22.2.91. The respondent alleged in his complaint before the District Forum that the bills were incorrect in so far as they included the amount of local calls whereas, in fact he did not make any local calls justifying the bills. He also complained that the disconnection was unlawful inasmuch as it did not precede any notice. He prayed for a direction to reduce the entire amounts for the local calls in the aforesaid 3 bills, to adjust the amount subsequently paid by him, to restore the telephone connection to him and to award a sum of Rs.21,000/-as compensation on account of alleged harassment caused by the disconnection, a further sum of Rs.8,000/-on account of the financial loss suffered by him and also a sum of Rs.2,100/-incurred by him as other misc. expenses.

(3.) In the reply filed by the department, the allegation about the excess billing was controverted and it was alleged that disconnection was made pursuant to the relevant rules on account of the non-payment of the outstanding bills dated 1.10.90 and 1.12.90, after repeated ring reminders had been attempted several times but which could not be fruitful as there was no response at the other end.