ACCOUNTS OFFICER Vs. TAPAN KR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the District Forum, Birbhum, disposing of a complaint alleging excessive telephone bill for a particular month. The respondent-Tapan Kr. Chowdhury was the complainant in Suri Consumer Forum Case No.12/94. He is a subscriber of a telephone No. Suri-668. His allegation was that although his monthly telephone bill ranged from Rs.200/- to 400/- per month, his bill for the period from 26.7.1993 to 25.9.1993 was raised for Rs.9,457/- which according to the petitioner was excessive and abnormal. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid consumer case before the District Forum for cancellation of the bill and for proper assessment for the aforesaid month. The opposite party-Telephone Authorities (appellants in the present appeal) contested the case by filing a written objection in which they stated that the bill was correctly prepared on the basis of the meter reading and that it was not an excessive one. The learned District Forum heard both the parties and examined the documents produced before him and came to the conclusion that the bill was actually an excessive one and was liable to be cancelled. The finding of the Forum was that the disputed bill of Rs.9,457/-was abnormal and without any foundation and should be treated as cancelled. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.456/- for the said bill which was to be adjusted from an amount of Rs.4,000/- which was earlier paid on ad hoc basis under orders of the Forum.

(2.) Challenging the aforesaid finding of the Forum, the appellants have stated that the petitioner was a Lecturer in a local College and also a Press Reporter. He has also STD facilities in his telephone and naturally he had made a substantial calls from his telephone. The appellants also questioned the legality of adjusting the charges of the telephone bill-against the amount already deposited.

(3.) We have perused the order of the District Forum carefully. The Forum has given the details of the call charges for the five preceding months against the telephone. It is observed that these calls were to the tune of Rs.246/-, Rs.212/-, Rs.418/-, Rs.150/- and Rs.456/-. Against this usual call charges, the sudden jumping of the call charges to Rs.9,457/- had, according to the Forum, no basis. It was argued before the Forum that the petitioner was connected with many educational organisations and further he was a local correspondent of a Daily Newspaper named Ganasakti and as such the number of calls was naturally to be high. The Forum considered this question and held that the petitioner is connected in his capacity as a Lecturer and as a Reporter for a long time and there is practically no explanation for this sudden spurt. His call charges were low prior to the disputed bill.