LAKSHESWAR TALUKDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Cross Appeal Nos. CA 139/97 and CA 150/97 are taken up together for disposal by single order as they arise from the same impugned judgment dated 29.8.1997 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, (for short, District Forum) in C. P. Case No.84/96. In the first one Shri L. Talukdar, the complainant in the original case in the District Forum is the appellant and in the second one Union of India, that is, the Telecommunication Department, and Telecom District Manager, Guwahati, who were opposite parties in the District Forum are the appellants. For our convenience we shall discuss the points raised in both the appeals together.

(2.) The facts of the case in the complaint adjudicated by the District Forum, which are common in both the appeals before us, are as follows : complainant Mr. L. Talukdar, Advocate, is the subscriber of Telephone No.524398 without STD facility at Guwahati, which was in operation since 18.4.1995. The complainant's first grievance is that he received first bill dated 1.9.1995 for 275 calls for the period from 16.6.1995 to 15.8.1995, in which he was charged for 125 calls only after giving him benefit of 150 free calls. As alleged by the complainant this bill is excessive as he was entitled to get 300 free calls covering both the billing cycles 7/95 and 9/95 as the telephone started functioning from 18.4.1995. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was charged for 612 and 418 calls in the third bill dated 1.1.1996 and fourth bill dated 1.3.1996 respectively whereas he claims to have never made more than 200 calls during each of the aforesaid billing cycles. He, then, lodged excess billing complaints against both the bills vide registered letters dated 13.1.1996 and 16.3.1996 as also asked the opposite parties to furnish particulars of the calls made. No reply was given to him, nor any investigation was done. Instead the opposite parties barred his telephone on 26.3.1996 from making outgoing calls. On his protest his telephone was restored on 5.4.1996. Thereafter again on 30.4.1996 his telephone was barred from making outgoing calls. As alleged by the complainant his telephone was ultimately disconnected on 18.7.1996 arbitrarily and illegally without giving any notice.

(3.) The complainant lodged the complaint in the District Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties Union of India and Telecome District Manager, Guwahati, for serving him excessive bills and disconnecting the telephone without notice, claiming himself as a busy Advocate in Guwahati High Court and having several other assignments he prayed in his complaint for immediate restoration of the telephone and award of total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only for mental agony and professional loss suffered by him.