DISTT MANAGER TELEPHONES CHANDIGARH Vs. SHER SINGH SHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint of the consumer, the District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh held on 8.10.1998 that the two telephone bills were high and there was deficiency in service and ordered that the bills be revised taking into consideration the average calls registered in the two bills immediately preceding the bills in question. Costs Rs.500/- were also awarded. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant - a consumer of telephone No.531231 - is a resident of 2366, Sec.35c, Chandigarh and his telephone bills for February, 1992 for the sum of Rs.3,528/- and April, 1992 for Rs.2,636/- were excessive, inflated and manipulated and were the result of fault in the meter or any type of mischief by the employees of the department. There was a usual reply that the telephone bills vary from time to time as per usage of the telephone facility. The bills were correctly issued and neither there was any mischief nor any fault.

(3.) The details of the bills from February, 1990 to February, 1992 supplied by the complainant under his signatures are reproduced as under from page 29 of the complaint : month/year amount. February, 1990 Rs.200/- April, 1990 Rs.222/- June, 1990 Rs.623/- August, 1990 Rs.258/- October, 1990 Rs.286/- December, 1990 Rs.274/- February, 1991 Rs.213/- April, 1991 Rs.249/- June, 1991 Rs.226/- August, 1991 Rs.320/- October, 1991 Rs.460/- December, 1991 Rs.435/- February, 1992 Rs.3528/- A few paras from the affidavit of the complainant dated 18.6.1993 are also reproduced as under : (4) It is further relevant to submit here that the complainant even after the restoration of the telephone as per the orders of this Hon'ble Forum dated 24.7.1992 received the bill in the range of Rs.250/- to Rs.342/- till date the details of which are given below : ( i ) 11.8.1992 Rs.250/- (ii) 11.10.1992 Rs.342/- (iii) 11.12.1992 Rs.297/- (iv) 11.2.1993 Rs.250/- (v) 11.4.1993 Rs.250/- (5) That the bill dated 29.2.1992 amounting to Rs.3,528/- for the period 25.11.1991 to 25.1.1992 is so excessive and feeling aggrieved the receipt of the same, the deponent made representation to the opposite party on 27.2.1992 (Annexure C-2) and requested to make thorough investigation as the bill was not as per the actual user of the telephone but the opposite party instead of investigating into the matter again sent the bill to the deponent for Rs.2,636/- and thereafter without issuing any notice which is mandatory, have disconnected the telephone on 12.4.1992. (6) That this excess billing of the aforesaid period which is under challenge in the present complaint is due to the misuse of the telephone by the staff of the opposite party who oblige others for consideration at the cost of the subscribers such like the deponent and also due to the defaults in lines, and exchange and meter of the telephone, the maintenance thereof is the sole responsibility of the opposite party as everything lying with the opposite party and the deponent has no access thereto. (7) That the opposite party has disconnected the telephone under reference without giving any notice and also issued the exorbitant bills and as such the opposite party failed to provide the efficient and faultless services to the deponent and committed the offence punishable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .