KHANEWAL BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals - Appeal No.948 filed by M/s. Khanewal Brothers, Karnal against the Union of India and others, and Appeal No.984 of 1996 filed by the Union of India and others against M/s. Khanewal Brothers - as both arise out of the same order dated 16.9.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Kamal.

(2.) The complainant's grievance before the learned District Forum was that even though he had applied for the disconnection of the STD facility from his telephone, yet the needful was not done for more than two years and this resulted in unnecessarily excess billing and inflated demands due to misuse of STD by the staff of the Telephone Department. In reply, the Telephone Department pleaded that no doubt application dated 15.11.1994 (Ex. C3) was received for disconnection of the STD facility yet due to non- availability of locking facility the STD could not be disconnected for quite sometime. Despite that, it has been pleaded that the non- disconnection of the STD for a certain period, however, did not adversely affect the billing of the telephone as there was no metering defect or sudden spurt in the telephone. The learned District Forum, after examining the matter in detail and perusing the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the non- disconnection of the STD facility for a long period was certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Department. So far as the grievance of the complainant regarding the excessive amount of three telephone bills was concerned, the learned District Forum declined the prayer as there was not enough evidence in support of the plea. However, the complaint was allowed awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has not advanced any fresh argument and has only reiterated the stand already taken by them before the District Forum. In the cross-appeal also, the learned Counsel for the complainant has only pleaded that once the deficiency in service regarding non-disconnection of the STD facility had been proved, it was the necessary consequence thereof that the amount of the three bills in question should also have been considered as inflated and excessive.