UNION OF INDIA Vs. R PURUSHOTHAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Chittoor District Forum dated 22.2.1994 sought to be questioned by the opposite parties in C. D. C. No.161/1991. The complainant in that CDC is the respondent before us. The respondent was served, but he has not appeared before us. We heard the arguments for the appellants. The record of the District Forum is also before us. We perused the record and the order of the District Forum.

(2.) The complainant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon having his nursing home named as 'bindu Nursing Home' in Chittoor. He was having a telephone in his nursing home since 1984. At the relevant time the number given to his telephone was 2546. According to him the monthly bills for his telephone did not exceed Rs.620/- and he was paying the bills regularly without committing any default. On receiving bill dated 1.8.1991 for Rs.2,738/- he complained about it to the 2nd appellant on 26.8.1991 and requested him for a revised bill to be issued after enquiring into the matter. He received reply dated 4.9.1991 from the Commercial Officer stating that the matter was under investigation and that he should pay the entire amount covered by the bill pending investigation. In view of the threat of disconnection he paid the entire bill amount of Rs.2,738/- on 4.10.1991. Again on 1.9.1991 he received a bill for Rs.1,418/- payable by 24.10.1991. He once again addressed letter dated 22.9.1991 about the spurt in the bill and once again requesting the opposite parties to reconsider the matter in the light of his earlier letter dated 26.8.1991 addressed in respect of the bill dated 1.8.1991. However on 24.10.1991 itself his telephone was disconnected. He thereafter paid the sum of Rs.1,418/- covered by bill dated 1.9.1991. Inspite of that the telephone was not restored till 1.11.1991. The appellants/opposite parties filed their version/counter before the District Forum. It was stated by them that the observation reports revealed that the complainant was using his telephone for S. T. D. calls for Tirupati and Madras frequently with abnormal duration of conversation with other expert doctors, and that he did not pay the bill amount under bill dated 1.8.1991 even upto 20.10.1991 and also reconnection charges of Rs.1,00/-, and that under those circumstances the disconnection was not bad.

(3.) We find that though by letter dated 4.9.1991 the complainant was informed that the matter was under investigation the appellants had not given any intimation to the complainant about the result of the investigation. No doubt they filed a report before the District Forum. But, when they asked the subscriber to pay the entire amount covered by the bill in respect of which the dispute was raised stating that the matter was under investigation, one would expect that the result of that investigation would be conveyed to the subscriber. The complainant specifically stated that he was keeping the telephone in a room under lock and key and that he alone was using the telephone mostly for making local calls and for receiving incoming calls. This itself would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. When a second time a complaint was made for Rs.1,418/- no action seems to have been taken by the appellants on the complainant's letter dated 22.9.1991. We have seen the bill of 1.9.1991. The date by which the bill amount should be paid to avoid disconnection was left blank. The appellants did not reply to the complainant's letter dated 22.9.1991 nor report about the result of the investigation said to have been in progress, as per letter dated 4.9.1991. The telephone however was disconnected on 24.10.1991. The complainant paid the amount covered by bill dated 1.8.1991 and reconnection charges on 28.10.1991; inspite of that, reconnection was not given till 1.11.1991. That is a clear deficiency in service and, therefore, we find that the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the District Forum as compensation is not in any way unreasonable or excessive. We, therefore, do not find any ground for interfering with the direction to pay the same.