GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. M HUSSIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite parties in O. P. No.356/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam are the appellants. The complainant challenged two bills, the first one being on 1.2.1997 for an amount of Rs.4,703/- and other bill dated 1.4.1997 for an amount of Rs.4,758/- on the ground that he did not make the STD and ISD calls from the telephone, yet these bills show that he had made STD and ISD calls and, therefore, the amount stated in the bills are not for genuine calls. He further alleged, there is no STD and ISD facilities for the said telephone. The opposite parties in their version sought to support the two bills maintaining, that though there is no STD and ISD facility for the telephone, since the telephone was operating from Chinnakkada Strowger Exchange, by repeated dialing the subscriber could get STD and ISD facility. Consequently the petitioners claim that the bills are vitiated cannot be accepted. They also maintained, that as per the complaint of the petitioner they conducted investigation as to the genuineness of the calls and are satisfied that the calls are genuine. Therefore, they wanted dismissal of the complaint. The complainant gave evidence as P. W.1, and on behalf of the opposite parties D. W.1 was examined. Complainant produced Exts. P1 to P10 and on behalf of the opposite parties Exts. D1 to D5 were produced. On a consideration of the aforesaid evidence the District Forum made a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs. (sic) as costs and further directed the opposite parties to omit charge for all STD and ISD calls from the bill and issue revised bill for local calls only. This direction is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain, that the direction of the District Forum cannot be supported as there is no deficiency of service. According to her, since the telephone in question was operating from Strowger Exchange, Chinnakkada repeated dialing could secure STD and ISD calls, in the context of the evidence of D. W.1 the case of the complainant cannot be accepted. It is also urged, that since on investigation it is revealed, that the calls are genuine, the District Forum could not have made the direction.

(3.) The impugned order itself notes the decision of the National Commission reported in III (1993) CPJ 287 wherein the National Commission held, that when STD facility is barred in a telephone, the authority cannot issue bills for STD calls. The principle laid down in the said decision is applicable to the facts of this case also. The case in hand admittedly did not have STD and ISD facility. It is equal to STD and ISD facilities having been barred hence by the force of the decision of the National Commission, the opposite party could not have issued bill including charges for STD and ISD calls. Except the version of DW 1, nothing was produced before the District Forum to show, that by repeated dialing STD and ISD calls can be secured even in a telephone where the said facility is not provided for. There is also no evidence to show, that the complainant was given opportunity to participate in the enquiry alleged to have been conducted by the opposite parties. These reasons stated by the District Forum for issuing the aforesaid direction cannot be faulted; we do not consider that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. The appeal is without merit, the same is liable to be dismissed which accordingly is hereby dismissed.