DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TELECOM) vs KULDIP BHARGAV

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.11.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 519 of 1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that telephone No. 405487 was installed at the residence of the complainant for which bills were issued since 1985. THE complainant was, issued bill dated 24.1.1992 for Rs. 11,498/- and bill dated 7.3.1992 for Rs. 2,129/-. According to the complainant both these bills were of excessive amount for which he filed Complaint No. 168/1992 in which the amount was reduced to Rs. 924/- per bill. THEreafter the complainant received a bill dated 15.5.1992 for a sum of Rs. 2,874/-. Complaints were made about this bill but nothing was done. THE complainant in order to save his telephone being disconnected, deposited the amount. The opposite party has alleged that the complainant remained in contact with the general public and hence the bill amount is not more.

Learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties and keeping in mind the previous judgment, directed for payment of Rs. 924/- only for this bill. It was also directed that the opposite party will revise the bill within 15 days and will adjust the rest of the amount in future bills. A sum of Rs. 200/- was also directed to be paid as cost.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Telecommunication Department has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. None was present on the date of hearing inspite of the fact that the date was intimated to the parties on service postal stamps.

IN the grounds of appeal it has been alleged that there is no provision in the Telegraph Act to issue bills on average basis and the District Forum has no authority to issue bill on average basis. It has not been indicated anywhere in the grounds of appeal or it has been alleged that the complainant has an STD connection. In the present case the connection only appears to be a local connection without an STD. Therefore, in view of the fact that the rebate for free calls is given, it is not possible to believe that the calls of Rs. 2,874/- would have been made by the complainant. Therefore, we find that the learned District Forum has not committed any illegality and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are liable to be confirmed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgement and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.