Divisional Engineer Telecommunication Department vs A J Wasim Rana

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 159 of 1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a heart patient and is subscriber of telephone No. 2665. This telephone became defective on 15.2.1992 and the complainant from time to time made several complaints for energizing the same. The complainant has given details of the complaints made by him. He has also met the person concerned in the Telecommunication Department on 21.3.1992, 22.3.1992 and 31.3.1992, but the telephone could not be energized before 3rd April, 1992. Thereafter the telephone again became defective on 8th April, 1992 and was repaired on 17.4.1992. The complainant received a bill dated 21.3.1992 from the Telecommunication Department which showed NIL calls. It contained a sum of Rs. 200/ - as rent for the months of March and April. The payment of this bill was made on 2nd April, 1992. A bill dated 1.4.1992 was also received by the complainant which showed no calls and only a sum of Rs. 200/ - was charged. The calls were NIL on account of the fact that the telephone remained dead. The charging of rent was not in accordance with the rules as the telephone remained dead. A sum of Rs. 233/ - was also demanded from the complainant which was without any basis. On 1.10.1991 arrears upto 1.10.1991 was not shown in any other bill and the rent of Rs. 200/ - has already been paid by the complainant.

THE complainant went to the officers of the Telecommunication Department and when he wanted to know about the details of the bill, the bill was corrected from Rs. 638/ - to Rs. 433/ -. According to the complainant he had not to pay any rent charges for the period the telephone remained dead. He was told by the Telephone Department that this amount shall be adjusted later on. Inspite of several requests the telephone of the complainant has been disconnected by the Telecommunication Department. The complainant has prayed for Rs. 25,000/ - as damages on account of mental and physical torture etc. The complainant was a heart patient and he had to use the telephone frequently for his ailment.

THE opposite party in the written version has alleged that the telephone of the complainant had not gone out of order on 15.2.1992. The allegations of the complainant to the contrary are wrong. According to the records of the Department of Telecommunications, the telephone of the complainant became dead on 16.3.1992 and was repaired on 17.3.1992 in the morning. Thereafter the telephone of the complainant did not go out of order. It is wrong to say that the telephone of the department went out of order from 16.2.1992 to 3.5.1992. In the bill dated 1.2.1992 the local calls and S.T.D. callas were NIL. This bill was for the period 10.11.1991 to 10.1.1992. The opening reading on 10.11.1991 was 3,000 while the closing reading on 10.1.1992 was 3112 calla meaning thereby 112 calls were made. All the calls were within exemption limit, therefore, the bill - - was of NIL amount. In the same manner for the period 10.1.1992 to 10.3.1992 the calls made by the complainant were 113 which were also within the examination limit. It is further alleged that the complainant was given a bill for Rs. 638/ -, the details of which are as given below : Bill dated 1.10.1992 Rs. 233/ - Bill dated 1.2.1992 Rs. 205/ - Bill dated 1.4.1992 Rs. 200/ - Total Amount : Rs. 638/ -

IT is wrong to say that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 200/ -. previously in the bill dated 1.10.1992. It is wrong to say that the bills are of Nil amount. Later on, on enquiry it was revealed that bill dated 1.2.1992 for Rs. 205/ - was paid by the complainant on 1.4.1992. Therefore, this much amount was deducted from the amount of Rs. 638/ - and was, therefore, reduced to Rs. 433/ - for which a demand notice was issued. The complainant was asked to pay this amount and when he did not pay the amount the telephone was disconnected on 27.5.1992. The number of calls made by the complainant for the following periods are given below : Period Chargeable Calls 10.1.1991 to 10.3.1991 0 1.7.1991 to 10.9.1991 1 10.3.1991 to 10.5.1991 87 10.9.1991 to 10.11.1991 64 10.3.1992 to 10.5.1992 0

ACCORDING to the Telephone Department, this statement goes to show that the calls of the complainant remained either 0 or below the chargeable limits. The complainant had not paid the bill dated 1.10.1991 for a sum of Rs. 233/ -. The complainant wanted the cancellation of this bill and when it was not done, the present complaint has been filed. The complainant can get the telephone restored after payment of Rs. 233/ - including Rs. 100/ - as restoration charges. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum, who after perusing the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Telephone Department and hence it directed the Telecommunication Department to restore the telephone of the complainant without charging any re -connection fee and they will also pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - for issuing wrong bills. It was also directed that the Telephone Department will not charge any amount for the period 15.2.1992 to 2.4.1992 and from 27.5.1992 till the date of restoration of the telephone.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum the opposite party, Telecommunications Department, has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None was present on behalf of the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the complainant the telephone remained out of order from 15.2.1992 till the date of filing the complaint on 9.6.1992. According to the learned Counsel for non -payment of the bill, the telephone has been disconnected on 27.5.1992. A perusal of the file goes to show that in the telephone bill dated 1.4.1992 the previous reading has been shown as 3112 and the last reading has been shown as 3225. In the bill dated 1.6.1992 the last reading has been shown as 3225 and the present reading ha been shown as 3270. The total calls made has been shown as 45. It has been observed by the learned District Forum that in this bill, the figure 3112 has been scored off and has been changed to 3225 showing 150 calls in all. The complainant made several complaints to Telecommunication Department but nothing was done. The bill dated 1.6.1992 in which the meter reading was given, was corrected after a long period. A perusal of the file will go to show that the telephone of the complainant reamained out of order on 15.2.1992 and remained dead for a long time and was repaired on 3.4.1992. Thereafter it again went out of order on 8.4.1992 and the defect was rectified on 15.8.1992. The complainant had made several complaints to the Telecommunication Department, the details of which have been given in the complaint. If the complainants telephone was repaired in a day, as stated by the Telecommunication Department, then it is not possible to believe that the complainant would have made so many complaints on different dates as given in the complaint. This goes to show that the complainants telephone remained out of order for sufficiently long time as alleged by him. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record it cannot be believed that the telephone of the complainant remained out of order only for a single day. The learned District Forum has considered this aspect of the matter in its judgment and it is not necessary for us to go into the details which have been mentioned by the learned District Forum especially the fact that wrong readings were noted in the bill which were later on corrected. The learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the telephone of the complainant remained out of order from 15.2.1992 to 2nd April, 1992 and from 27.5.1998 also. The complainant was not liable to pay any rent for the period it remained dead. A sum of Rs. 500/ - which has been awarded as compensation cannot be said to be on the higher side. The result is that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment 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. Appeal dismissed.