JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER vs JULIA DAVID

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kollam in O.P. No. 433/ 92. The opposite parties are the appellants.

THE complainant is a subscriber of telephone No. 202 of Sasthamcotta. On 11.10.91 she was served with a bill for Rs. 59386/- for the period from 26.7.91 to 25.9.91. On 22.10.91 she filed a complaint before the opposite parties stating that the bill is excessive and that it does not reflect the actual calls. On 24.10.91 a split bill was served on the complainant directing her to deposit Rs. 370/-. That amount was remitted on 28.10.91. On 11.12.91 another bill was issued which was for the period from 26.9.91 to 25.11.91 for Rs. 10745/-. In regard to this bill also a complaint was filed and a split bill for Rs. 415/- was issued. THE amount in this split bill was paid on 16.1.92. On 11.3.92 he was directed to pay the balance amount towards bill for Rs. 10745/-. THE complainant did not pay the amount and the telephone was disconnected on 25.3.92 THE complainant was informed that the equipments are working properly. THEreafter she got Bill dated 11.2.92 for Rs. 212/- and bill dated 11.4..92 for Rs. 230/-. THEse two bill amounts were also paid. She was ultimately given a bill for Rs. 59386/- giving a rebate of 17,798 calls and the complainant was directed to remit Rs. 39438/- towards that bill. This is after deducting the amount already paid. According to the complainant there was defect in the meter reading equipments She also alleged during the previous 6 months ,the maximum bill was only Rs. 408/-. It is in those circumstances me complaint was filed. Version was filed by the opposite party stating that the matter was investigated and the finding was communicated. It was also alleged that complainant was making ISD calls and metering was registering only actual use and no equipment fault was detected. Since the dues were not paid the phone was disconnected after notice. There is nothing to show that the complainant has not actually used the phone to the extent of calls metered. However, benefit of doubt was given, since there was a possibility of the line having remained undisconnected on finishing some international calls.

The District Forum observed the extract of meter card was not produced. It also noticed that one of the reasons for exorbitant bill stated by the opposite party was that the line must have remained undisconnected on finishing some international calls. It also round that no document was produced to show on what basis rebate of 17,798 calls was given. In the cross examination of PW1, no special circumstance was made out or suggested to show that she had a special occasion to make large number of calls. In these circumsantances the District Forum took the view that the bills dated 11.10.91 and 11.12.91 cannot be sustained. The District Forum also made a direction to give re-connection to the opposite party free of charge. There is also a further direction to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 250/-.

IN this appeal learned Counsel challenged the findings of the District Forum. It is submitted that the functioning of the meter equipment was observed and no fault of meter was detected. IN the circumstances he contended that there is no justification to pass the impugned order. We are unable to agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Normally in a case where no fault for meter reading equipment was established, we would have held that there would be no justification for the District Forum to cancel the bill and direct re-connection. However in the instant case the department itself has given rebate of 17,798 calls. It has not been shown either in the version or in the ground of the appeal that large number of international calls were registered. The opposite party speaks of only one international call. The definite case of the complainant is that she had no occasion to make international calls. The telephone was installed in 1986 and ever since that the bills barring two disputed bills was for amounts within the range of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/-. As indicated above, the opposite party has no case that there was some special occasion for the abnormal use of the telephone. IN these circumstances we did not find any justifiable ground to hold that the order passed by the District Forum cancelling the two disputed bills is in any way illegal. The split bills issued by the opposite party have been paid already by the complainant. It follows that the disconnection of telephone is not justified and we sustain the order passed by the District'' Forum to give connection free of charge. However we do not mink that there is justification to award a further sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation. We set aside that part of the order. The parties will bear their respective costs. Ordered accordingly.