TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. PYARELAL SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful opposite parties of C. D. case No. 356 of 1996 have filed this appeal against the complainant challenging the orders dated 21.3.1997 of the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela in the said C. D. case.

(2.) The case in brief is that the complainant who is an old man having small business obtained telephone connection bearing No. 6193 for his personal use from June 1982. He was paying telephone bills regularly. The phone number was changed to No. 690193. He was continuously paying minimum rent/bill which was maximum up to Rs. 250. The telephone was not working properly and was remaining dead for days together. This was not rectified inspite of repeated request of the complainant. When complainant received inflated phone bills on 11.6.1992 and 11.8.1992 and in the year 1993 for the period of 1988 and bill dated 11.12.1993 for the period dated 1.2.1988 and 11.10.1992 for Rs. 1,488, Rs. 8,729 and Rs. 2,506 respectively, and the complainant objected, the Telephone Department received minimum amount of Rs. 200 on revision of the said bill from him. The telephone department later on not only sent complainant discrepant phone bills dated 1.9.1995 and 17.1.1996 but also carelessly raised and demanded arrear bill for Rs. 14,626 to be paid by 27.10.1996. Said department disconnected said telephone on 26.7.1994. Therefore, complainant filed the C.D. Case claiming compensation due to deficiency in service by the appellants at the same time to give a direction to write off said amount of Rs. 14,626.

(3.) The opposite parties/appellants did not admit deficiency in service on their part. Their case in brief is that the complainant being a businessman was availing S.T.D. facility resulting to excess telephone bills. They have never inflated money as per bills. The telephone was working properly. But due to spurt, complainant was given rebate to the tune of Rs. 8,000 under benefit of doubt. He is a habitual complainer. In spite of their cooperation and grant of rebate, complainant continued to be a defaulter in respect to telephone charges. Thus they had claimed for dismissal of the C. D. case.