AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 225 wordsFROM the records we find that on four occasions the opposite party issued bills for excess amounts and on those occasions the complainant made representations whereupon the bills were revised by the opposite party. This clearly proves that there has been some deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service. The metering of the telephone calls has not been done properly and this has resulted in the excess billing. As regards disconnection, the complainant has paid the bills dated 1.1.1998 and 1.3.1998 with reconnection fee and got the reconnection. We also find from the records that rebate was also granted to the complainant in respect of bill for November 1997. Thus, the circumstances clearly prove that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On the basis of the materials, it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion than the one that has been arrived at by the lower Forum. The grant of compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for deficiency in service and cost of Rs. 500/- by the lower Forum can never be termed as high. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal.
IN the result, this appeal is dismissed but without costs, confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Appeal dismissed.