DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TELEPHONES) vs NEELMANI DAS

-THIS case was taken up in the revised list. The appellant is represented by Shri Sunil Sharma whereas neither the opposite party nor his Counsel is present. The case is of the year 1993. Further it was taken up after taking a view that the case can be decided on merits after hearing the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusing the record available. Since it is an old case the Commission thought it proper not to delay the appeal any further and to hear and decide the case on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY the case has been heard. The complaint relates to alleged enhanced bill for the period 9.5.1991, 28.9.1991, 1.11.1991 and 23.1.1992.

The learned District Forum ordered for cancellation of bills dated 8.9.1991, 1.11.1991 and 23.1.1992 and for issuing bill on the basis of bill amount pertaining to previous six months. The learned Forum also directed for compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and also some allied reliefs.

MR. Sunil Sharma, impugning the order of the learned District Forum stated that the arbitrary view of the Forum is bad in law which was not the domain of the consumer. It was further argued that no material could be placed by the complainant so as to decree the complaint. We have considered this aspect of the matter and perused the matter. The grievance of the complainant initially was that the bills for the period 9.5.1991, 28.9.1991, 1.11.1991 and 23.1.1992 were quite excessive and inspite of protest no fruitful result came. The consequent grievance of the complainant was that the STD facility on the telephone was withdrawn in the month of September 1991 and he was re-allotted the number 27015. Since then the telephone was lying dead with no functioning and in this regard complaint was made but no action was taken and as stated it was mentioned that the complainant was not under any obligation to make payment of any alleged dues claimed by the department. The argument of the complainant relates to the fact that the telephone number has been changed, but inspite of its bills of the earlier telephone number are being debited in his account for which neither the complainant is liable to make payment nor he has made the payment. The learned District Forum banking on all these facts came to the conclusion that both parties, i.e., the department/appellant as well as the complainant/respondent did not furnish the proper details to come to a proper conclusion as to what could have been the proper amount of bill. Only two documents have been placed before the District Forum and that was photocopy of the bill of January, 91 and March, 91 which was accordingly for Rs. 234/- and Rs. 200/-. The learned District Forum also took the view that the previous records were not available. It is surprising that when previous bills were not made available, how the District Forum can come to a definite decision. Further-more, what was available in the circumstances was that parties should have settled issue in the light of documents lying in custody of appellant and materials of consumer respondent.

IN view of the above discussion the Commission thinks proper to set aside the order and direct that the complainant/respondent will present himself before the department officials after contacting him for a proper date and the department will produce before him all the previous bills if the record is available and then come to an amicable solution. ORDER The appeal is allowed, judgment and order of the learned District Forum is set aside. The parties are directed to solve the matter amicably in the light of relevant materials and in resolving the pending issues, the department will take a compassionate ground. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their costs. The compliance of the order be made within a period of one month. Appeal allowed.