SUDERSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Hon'ble National Commission filed against order dated 29. 5. 2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar in Complaint Case No. 373-DF-2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

(2.) THE complaint was filed by Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan in the District Forum, Jalandhar averring therein that bill for the telephone bearing No. 203497 installed at his residence was excessive for the month of September, 1997, for an amount of Rs. 13,034. It is the say of the complainant that the OPs were approached by him with a request to issue the print out of the call details. It is alleged by the complainant that matter was put off under one pretext or the other and the complainant was told that the matter will be settled within 15-20 days after the perusal of disputed bill by the SDO. It is averred that the bills for the September, 1997 to May, 1999 were received in the normal course and the complainant was expecting to get some information from the OPs with regard to settlement of the disputed bill. It is stated that a disconnection order dated 19. 5. 1999 was issued by the OPs on the ground that the bill of Rs. 13,034 stood unpaid and the phone was disconnected without any notice. The complainant has averred that he was denied any opportunity of personal hearing before disconnection nor any copy of details of the print out with call details as requested were supplied to him. It is alleged that the various representations against the excessive bill remained unheard and his phone was wrongfully disconnected and consequent to non-availability of the telephone, he was deprived him of receiving medical aid from doctors of Batra Hospital and Sharanjit Hospital for his wife who was sick at the relevant time. In the prayer clause, a compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental tension, inconvenience and harassment has been claimed.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the OPs, the preliminary objection taken is that the case being of excessive billing, requires elaborate and detailed evidence and cannot be decided by way of summary trial. It is further stated that the remedy available to the consumer under Indian Telegraph Act of which Section 7 (B) envisages arbitration for the adjudication of the dispute, if any, due to which the complaint in the Forum deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that since the representations of the consumer have been rejected as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint has been alleged to be false, frivolous and vexatious and it is pleaded that same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000. The next plea taken by the OP is that complainant is guilty of not making use of dynamic Code locking facility, installed to prevent any misuse having failed to make use of that, is estopped by his own acts and conduct, from filing the complaint. In reply on merits, the factum of issuance of bill for an amount of Rs. 13,047 plus Rs. 400 as surcharge has been admitted. It is stated that this was on account of calls made from telephone in question and the representation by complainant was rejected by the Competent Authority, as no ground was made out. The OPs have stated that they are under no obligation to issue any reminder to the consumer, still to avert disconnection reminders dated 10. 5. 1999, 11. 5. 1999, 13. 5. 1999, 15. 5. 1999 and 19. 5. 1999 were given. Further it is stated that no personal hearing is to be given under the law, still the complainant was explained and apprised the details of amount with the print out. It is submitted that disconnection of the telephone was on account of non-payment, thus no loss suffered or the mental harassment as alleged can be attributed to the OPs. It is stated that the complainant ought to have deposited the amount to avoid disconnection and inconvenience. The allegations of deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice have been denied. It is submitted that complainant is not entitled to any relief. A prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000.