SDO TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION Vs. ANUPMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission has been filed against order dated 20. 7. 2000 in Complaint Case No. 23 of 24. 4. 2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under. That the respondent/complainant a subscriber of telephone bearing No. 88240 provided by the appellants at Fatehabad in District Hisar with sub-exchange Gillankhera. As per averments, the complainant has been depositing the bills regularly. A bill for the amount of Rs. 115 was received for the period 1. 7. 1999-31. 8. 1999 preceding the disputed bills. The complainant is aggrieved against the bill for the period 11. 9. 1999 to 31. 10. 1999 for an amount of Rs. 3,392 and another bill for the period 31. 12. 1999 to 1. 11. 1999 for an amount of Rs. 8,687. It has been averred that these bills are not in accordance with consumption and have been issued wrongly. The respondent/complainant has stated that next bill for the period 1. 1. 2000 to 29. 2. 2000 was for an amount of Rs. 645. The complainant has alleged that the equipment/machinery installed at sub-exchange Gillankhera were replaced during September, 1999 to December, 1999. The disputed bills which are for such highly inflated amounts have also been alleged to be on account of defective machinery/equipment installed by the appellant/ops. The complainant has stated that he approached the officials of OP department personally and also it was conveyed in writing regarding unreasonably inflated bills but the needful was not done. In the prayer clause, the complainant has sought a direction to the appellant/ops to charge the disputed bills on the average basis and not to disconnect the bills on the ground of non-payment and a compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the harassment has been claimed.

(2.) IT has also come on record that during the period this complaint was pending in the Forum, his representation before the Competent Authority of the appellant department was dismissed.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the SDO, Telecommunications, Fatehabad, the preliminary objection taken is that the complainant is having STD connection and the bill of STD telephone can run into several thousands of rupees even in a single day if excessive calls are made. It has been stated that this complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum in view of fact that the Forum cannot adjudicate in a dispute relating to excessive metering. It is further averred that since the telephone in question is having dynamic locking facility, the same cannot be misused, the bills since issued in accordance with the usage, the respondent/complainant is liable to pay them under Rule 440 of Indian Telegraphic Act. It has been stated that false and frivolous complaint be dismissed as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file the complaint. The allegation of deficiency in service have been denied.