SAHIB SINGH Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant challenging order of the District Forum dated March 15, 1996 whereby his complaint was allowed partly and the amount of one of the telephone bills was reduced from Rs.6,766/- to Rs.2,000/-. With regard to other bills, the request was declined.

(2.) Only brief facts are required to be noticed to decide this appeal. The complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No.73061. Subsequently, the number was changed to 72037. In February, 1989, the STD facility provided to Telephone No.73061 was disconnected at the instance of the complainant on payment of requisite charges. In dispute, were two bills of April 11,1992 and June 11, 1992, amounting to Rs.6,766/- and Rs.1,409/-. They were stated to be excessive as compared to the previous bills ranging from April, 1989 to February, 1992. The complainant alleged that he was a retired Government official and was not using the STD facility on the telephone which was got disconnected. In reply to the complaint, the Telephone Department took up the stand that the telephone was with STD facility and the bills submitted were in accordance with the meter reading. It was admitted that complaints were filed by the complainant to the department about excess billing, which were subsequently rejected. The complainant in support of his allegations produced his own affidavit. However, on behalf of the Telephone Department, no evidence was produced. The District Forum observed that on the basis of the average bills of the previous period, relief as such could not be granted to the complainant. Still in respect of one of the bills, he reduced the amount. It was mentioned in the impugned order that the case was decided on the pleadings of the parties.

(3.) Sahib Singh, complainant has argued that he had produced his affidavit before the District Forum, whereas, no evidence was produced by the Telephone Department and the assertion made by the complainant should be taken as proved. There is force in this contention. It is the case of the complainant that STD facility provided to his telephone was disconnected in February, 1989 on payment of Rs.50/- as charges. This position during the arguments is not being disputed by the Telephone Department. This Telephone Number was changed subsequently and it is the stand of the Telephone Department that STD facility was provided. It is not understandable that when STD facility was withdrawn at the instance of the complainant, why it was restored unilaterally by the Telephone Department. Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department in the alternative has argued that even if the STD facility was disconnected as back as in 1989, the services on the telephone in dispute could be available by tapping 'o' several time and on some occasion, the subscriber could be connected to STD facility. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Annexure-1 attached in the book of Swamy's Treatise on Telephone Rules, page 415, which provides that STD facility, if withdrawn in Strowger Exchanges, the subscriber could get STD line by tapping level 'o' again and again. Be that as it may, it is not the case pleased that in this manner, the telephone was misused by the complainant. The stand is otherwise that STD facility was provided, which has not been established by any evidence. In such circumstances, there was no other course but to quash the two bills, which were based on STD calls, which could not be made from the telephone of the subscriber when STD facility had been withdrawn. This appeal is accepted. The order of the District Forum is modified and the two bills disputed, are quashed. The amount, if any paid, would be adjusted in subsequent telephone bills, along with a sum of Rs.500/- costs of litigation. Appeal accepted with costs.