DISTRICT MANAGER, TELEPHONE vs S.S.SODHI

THE respondent, Sh. S.S. Sodhi, has telephone No. 24971 at his residence in Sector 36-B, Chandigarh and he had been paying his telephone bills regularly till the end of 1989 when to his surprise he received a demand for the payment of a bill of Rs. 15,843/- for the two-months period 16.9.89 to 15.11.89. This bill reflected a total of 14190 (local) calls during the aforesaid two-months period whereas the subscriber contended that during the preceding two years at an average he had been paying Rs. 1,003/- roughly for l/10th of the calls for which he was being asked to pay.

HIS representation to the Department was only partially successful. He received a revised bill for Rs. 3,550/- for 4001 and some odd calls and the remaining 10,000 calls were treated as "disputed" ones. Subsequently he was informed that against the 10,000 "disputed" calls he was being allowed a rebate of 8000 calls - and was liable to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,293/- for the remaining 2000 calls. Having failed to obtain satisfaction from the Telecom Department, the respondent moved the District Forum, Chandigarh, for the redressal of his grievance. The Department, the present appellant, took the stand that the two bills issued to the respondent were in accordance with its rules and the provisional bills were "logical, legal and not excessive" after allowing him a "suitable rebate of 8000 calls".

The District Forum went into the whole matter at very considerable length and after taking into account all the relevant facts came to the conclusion that the subscriber''s liability worked out to Rs. 1,003.00 = average of his bills + 25% for extra calls and directed the Department to refund to the respondent the balance of the amount already paid by him. Interest at 12% on the excess amount and Rs. 150/- by way of litigation costs were also allowed to him. These directions are contained in the District Forum''s detailed order of the 3rd May, 1991.

THE learned Government Pleader sought to assail the aforesaid order on a number of grounds. But the principal thrust of his arguments was that there was no fault in the metre or the line or the telephone apparatus. Nor had the telephone in question been misused by any employee of the Department. THE Department, according to him, had been fair and reasonable inasmuch as it had itself allowed the rebate of 8000 calls but was unable to clarify as to why the rebate allowed was of 8000 calls only. He had not been able to convince the District Forum in this behalf-and he also failed to carry conviction with this Commission on this crucial issue. After having weighed all the arguments presented by the parties, we find no reason for interfering with the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Pronounced is open Court. Appeal dismissed.