OM PRAKASH Vs. D T E TELEPHONE THATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Case No. 15/SOC/92. Briefly the facts are that Shri Om Prakash of Thathura filed a complaint alleging that his telephone was disconnected approximately two years ago and praying for its restoration during the pendency of the case. After hearing the parties, the State Commission directed the restoration of the telephone at once if the appellant herein make a deposit of Rs. 1,200/- and the security money with the Telephone Department.

(2.) The dispute was about the excess billing for the period June, 1989toJune, 1991 through 15 bills sent by the Department. The allegation of the complainant is that his telephone was disconnected on 2.10.89 whereas the Telephone Department stated that it was disconnected on 11.12.89 on account of non-payment of bills. The amount outstanding against the appellant on 11.12.89 was Rs. 5,601/-. The State Commission after going through the records in detail in respect of six bills found that the appellant had complained to the Department only about one bill dated 21.10.88 and they found that this bill was correct. Hence, they concluded that he was not entitled to get any relief for the bills from June, 1988 to June, 1989. Thereafter the State Commission took up for consideration the nine bills from June, 1989 to June, 1991. As already mentioned the telephone, according to the Department, was disconnected on 11.12.89 on which date an amount of Rs. 5,601/- was due from the appellant. It was also noted by the State Commission that the telephone was not restored till the date of arguments before them. In respect of this period also the State Commission examined the records in respect of bills dated 5.8.89, 5.10.89,1.2.89 and 1.12.89 in detail. The remaining five bills dated 2.4.90,1.6.90,1.8.90, April, 91 and 8.6.91 were also examined. After a detailed examination the State Commission came to the conclusion that dues in respect of bills dated 5.8.89, 5.10.89,1.2.89 and 1.12.89 amount to Rs. 1,200/- and not Rs. 5,601/- as shown by the Telephone Department. On the basis of these facts the State Commission directed the Telephone Department to amend the demand note dated 20.8.90 till 30.6.93 and inform the complainant accordingly. The State Commission did not find any justification for compensation to the appellant herein and directed that if the appellant deposits the amount due at Rs. 1,200/- along with security money, his telephone connection shall be restored by the Department by allotting a new telephone number without providing STD services thereon within a period of one month from the date of order.

(3.) We have carefully perused the record of the case and heard the Authorised Representative (Partner) of the appellant in person and Mr. S.S. Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondents. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the State Commission. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.