UNION OF INDIA Vs. H S YESHANTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Union of India, through Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Jaipur and other officials of the Telecom. Department against the order of the District Forum, Kota dated 6.1.93 quashing telephone bill in respect of the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90 of local calls and directing the appellants to send a revised telephone bill to the complainant on the basis of average of preceding three months and further to pay Rs. l, 000/-as compensation to the complainant.

(2.) The complainant is a Dental Surgeon and runs a Clinic in first floor in Purani Sabji Mandi, Kota. He had a telephone at his Clinic bearing No.24568. On 14.11.90 the complainant filed a complainant before the District Forum, Kota alleging that the telephone bill dated 16.10.90 which he received with respect to local calls for the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90 for Rs.5416/- was excessive. In para 7 of the complaint, the complainant mentioned that the telephone bills in respect of local calls during preceding years and other periods were quite low in comparison to the telephone bill for the local calls for the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90. According to the complainant, he did not use the telephone for local calls during the said period to this extent and the telephone bill was false and had been sent to him to cause him loss and mental distress. The complainant went to the office of the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Kota and Sub-Division Officer, Telephones, Kota and drew their attention to the above fact, but they always asked the complainant to deposit the amount of the bill failing which the telephone connection was threatened to be disconnected. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint praying that the Opposite Parties-appellants may be restrained from recovering the amount mentioned in the said telephone and from disconnecting the telephone and further to pay to the complainant Rs.6,000/- as costs.

(3.) The version of the Opposite Parties - appellants was that the bill in question was sent for a correct amount according to the use of the telephone made by the complainant. Upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, necessary investigation - internal as well as external - was carried out and no defect was found in the metering equipment or in external line. It was also pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer and remedy also lay before the complainant under Sec.7b of the Telegraph Act.