Department of Telecommunications vs Bank of India

THIS appeal arises from order dated 17th March, 2003 rendered by the learned Banaskantha District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Palanpur in consumer case No. 265/1994 directing the opponent Telecom District to refund Rs. 416/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.5.1994 till payment and compensation and cost respectively in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each.

WHEN this appeal came up for hearing no one remained present for either of the parties. We have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal. It was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that the telephone in question was allotted at the residence of the Branch Manager of the Bank and when the Branch Manager shifted residence the complainant paid all dues including the amount of shifting charges. Regular bills did not exceed Rs. 200/- for the billing period and yet the opponent Telecom District gave additional bill for Rs. 166/- by way of trunk call charges. The complainant deposited the amount subject to contention that the bill was in fact not correct as no trunk call charge was payable by the complainant or the occupant of the residence where the telephone was installed. The opponent Telecom District corrected the bill and gave refund of only Rs. 54/-. In spite of this episode the opponent Telecom District sent another bill for Rs. 240/- and gave credit of Rs. 112/- and called upon the Bank to pay Rs. 128/-. This was followed by another bill for Rs. 376/- as particularised in the complaint. The complainant Bank paid all the bills subject to contentions and made grievance that the Bank was entitled to refund of illegal recovery in respect of each and every disputed bill as pointed out with particulars thereof to the opponent Telecom District. The opponent Telecom District also tried to correct its mistake but repeated the same in the subsequent bills.

In our considered opinion there clearly appears deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Telecom District in respect of the main claim of the complainant Bank. However, bearing in mind the amount involved the award of compenensation and cost in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each clearly appears to be harsh and excessive.

IN view of what is stated above we pass following order: Impugned order dated 17th March, 2003 rendered by the learned Banaskantha District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Palanpur will stand maintained except with regard to compensation and cost which will stand reduced to Rs. 400/- each. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no further order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.