AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REVISION No. 10/96 is against the order passed in relation to Complaint Case No. 1205/93, while REVISION No. 9/96 is against the order passed by the District Forum in relation to Complaint Case No. 2331/93.
IN Complaint Case No. 1205/93, complainant''s case was that after depositing an amount of Rs. 8,841/- on 19.8.87, the complainant had taken non-exchange telephone No. 28 at Raiji ka Gher, Chandi ki Taksal, Jaipur. By this non-exchange telephone No. 28, the complainant could talk with his office at Transport Nagar, Jaipur only. It was stated that the Telecom Department at Jaipur had provisionally determined the distance between the two places as 7 kms. and charged Rs. 7,600/- as annual rent in advance on 19.8.87. It was stated that the opposite party had assured that in the near future the distance between the two places would be measured and the annual rent will be determined on the basis of actual radial distance and if the amount of Rs. 7,600/- was found to be excess, adjustment would be made. The complainant stated that despite this assurance, the opposite party did not measure the actual radial distance and did not make adjustment of the excess rent recovered form the complainant. The complainant then alleged that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 7,600/- under protest on 1.3.90. The opposite party by letter dated 2.3.90 assured that necessary action would be taken to measure the actual radial distance, but the actual distance was not measured. The opposite party then sent a consolidated bill of Rs. 22,800/- on 21.6.92. Upon receipt of this bill of Rs. 22,800/-, the complainant sent a protest letter on 27.6.92 requesting the opposite party to send the bill according to the actual radial distance. When the complainant pursued the matter further, he was assured that the dispute would be settled by 15.4.93. However, despite that the complainant had to deposit the amount of Rs. 22,800/- under threat of the opposite party. IN this complaint case, the complainant prayed that the amount of Rs. 22,800/- deposited by him may be refunded to him despite the fact the telephone was disconnected and in a dead position since Feb., 91. The complainant further claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 27,000/- from February, 91 till the filing of the complaint on the ground that he could not avail the telephone facility from February, 91. He also claimed Rs. 40,000/- on the basis that this much amount must have been realised in excess from the complainant by charging rent, etc. on the basis that the distance was 7 kms. Apart from that the complainant claimed correspondence charges and costs. The total claim was Rs. 99,800/-. We may state that although the complaint has been drafted in a confused manner by the complainant, but that is the substance of the complaint. Version has filed to this complaint by the opposite party wherein it was admitted that the non-exchange telephone was given to the complainant w.e.f. 8.10.96. It was stated that the radial distance was 5 kms. and according to the departmental instruction, radial distance was calculated at 1 of the actual distance which came to 6 , i.e. 7 kms. The opposite party pleaded that rent on the basis of distance of 7 kms was thus correctly charged. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to any adjustment of any amount alleged to have been charged excess. The opposite party also pleaded that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 22,800/- in relation to alleged defective period of the telephone.
We may state that Complaint Case No. 1205/93 was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Jaipur on 14.6.93. It appears that thereafter a telephone bill dated 1.7.93 for an amount of Rs. 12,433 /- was sent to the complainant demanding advance rent for the period from 1.7.93 to 30.6.94 amounting to Rs. 10,500/- and arrears for the period from 1.11.92 to 30.6.93 amounting to Rs. 1,933/-. As the opposite party was not determining the actual distance and the complainant was tired of the attitude of the opposite party, he gave notice for removing the telephone and for cancelling the demand made in the telephone bill dated 1.7.93 for Rs. 12,433/-. The complainant filed a second Complaint Case No. 2331/93 on 10.9.93 upon receipt of the above mentioned bill dated 1.7.93. In the second complaint the complainant prayed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for defective services of the opposite party, for cancellation of the bill of the amount of Rs. 12,433/- alleging that when the telephone was lying disconnected and dead sending of the bill was not warranted. The complainant also challenged the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 1,933/- in the said bill as arrears. Apart from that, compensation for mental distress and agony and costs of the complaint were claimed. We may mention that the opposite party had filed a version in respect of Complaint Case No. 2331/93. In this version, the opposite party stated that the distance between Raiji ka Gher and Transport Nagar was originally determined as provisional. Thereafter steps were taken to measure the actual distance and the distance was found to be 5 kms. The opposite party stated that now the distance has been fixed as 5 kms. It was also stated in the version that from 8.1.96 till the filing of the version, an amount of Rs. 19,200/- had been received from the complainant in excess. Necessary adjustment has been done in the bills dated 1.7.93 and 1.6.94. The adjustment made in the said two bills was of the amounts of Rs. 9,433/- and Rs. 7,650/-. The opposite party further stated that the remaining amount of Rs. 2,117/- would either be adjusted in further bills or refunded to the complainant.
AS has already been stated, the District Forum, Jaipur-I has decided both the complaints Nos. 1205/93 and 2331/93 by a common order dated 19.12.95 and has dismissed both the complaints. We may also mention that the District Forum, Jaipur-I has observed in its order that the complainant had stated in Complaint Case No. 1205/93 that the opposite party had assured that actual measurement of the distance would be made and the rent will accordingly be determined and the excess amount realised, if any, will be refunded. With regard to this, the District Forum observed that the complainant failed to prove such an assurance. The District Forum also stated that the complainant has not proved that the distance between the two places was less than 7 kms. It was also observed by the District Forum that the complainant''s complaint was only this that the radial distance was not correctly determined and, therefore, the rent amount was charged in excess. However, the Forum said that the complainant did not prove that the distant was lesser and amount was not being charged from him in a proper way. It was also observed that it could not, therefore, be said that the telephone was wrongly disconnected. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service. We are constrained to state that the District Forum, Jaipur-I has decided the two complaints and dismissed them in a very perfunctory and perverse manner. When complaints are decided in such perfunctory manner, it necessitates remand of the cases and thus unduly delay the decision of consumer disputes. The reasons given by the District Forum, Jaipur-I in its order dated 19.12.95 clearly go to show that the District Forum did not at all care to read the version of the opposite party which it had filed in Complaint Case No. 2331/93. In the version filed in this complaint case, the opposite party had itself admitted that initially the distance of 7 kms was provisionally determined and later on the distance was determined as 5 kms. The opposite party also stated in the version filed in Complaint Case No. 2331/93 that the complainant had deposited an excess amount of Rs. 19,200/- and the opposite party further stated that adjustment has been made to a greater extent in bills dated 1.7.93 and 1.6.94 and the balance will be adjusted in future. This version completely nullifies the findings of the District Forum, Jaipur-I that the distance originally determined was not more than what should have been determined.
WE, therefore, allow both these revisions, set aside the order of the District Forum, Jaipur-I dated 19.12.95 and remand Complaint Cases Nos. 1205/93 and 2331/93 to the said Forum with the directions that it should examine the pleadings of the parties in both the complaint cases and after finding out the questions in controversy between the parties in the two complaints, it should give its findings on all the questions in controversy involved including the alleged disconnected period, if any, and give its findings on all aspects relevant to the cases and then decide both the complaints by a correctly reasoned order. WE deprecate the tendency of the Forums to decide consumer cases irresponsibly and without due application of mind. The disposal of the two above mentioned complaints by the District Forum, Jaipur I is an example to show that complaints are decided by the Forum in a very perfunctory manner and such tendency should be stopped by the Forum henceforth. The respondent will pay Rs. 1000/- as costs to the complainant of these revisions. Revision allowed with costs.