TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. R MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the opposite party.

(2.) The case of the complainant is as follows: For his phone bearing No. PY 71415 he received a bill dated 18.7.95-containing charges for a trunk call to the tune of Rs. 295/which he did not make. He sent a Lawyer's notice regarding the trunk call charges. The opposite party by a letter-dated 20.11.95 admitted that there was wrong billing and agreed to adjust the said amount in the ensuing bills. However, they sent a bill-dated 1.12.95 for Rs. 210/- without adjusting the amount as agreed to. The complainant had to go to the Accounts Officer, explain the matter to him and get a 'Nil endorsement' in the bill-dated 1.12.95. In spite of this, his phone was disconnected from 28.12.95 regarding outgoing calls. Upon another legal notice by the complainant, the telephone was restored on 21.6.96

(3.) The case of opposite party was that as per the arrangement the adjustment agreed to on 20.11.95 could be reflected only in the bill covering a period beyond 20.11.95 and not in the next bill covering the period upto 15.11.95.