P.K.GOEL vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, DISTRICT JAIPUR

BEING dissatisfied with the order dated 1.3.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 232/ 90, the Complainant who is appellant before us has filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act", herein).

THE Complainant is subscriber of Telephone No. 65272 (New number 69198). THEre is no S .T.D. facility. THE complainant received a bill dated 1.12.89 for Rs. 17,090/-. THE Complainant complained about it on 20.12.89. He deposited Rs. 1,090/- under protest. He was told that Rs. 16,000/- are under dispute and so investigation will be made. THE Complainant was informed vide letter dated 2.2.90 that after testing metering circuit and other instruments, no defect was found and the Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 16,000/-. It was mentioned that the amount will not be accepted after 19.2.90. THE Complainant on the basis of the bills from 1.4;88 to 20.10.89 submitted that the bill dated 1.12.89 is wrong and inflated as based on wrong recording of readings in the meter and defective instrument. He filed the complaint dated 15.2.90. He prayed that the Opposite Party respondent may be restrained from recovering Rs. 16,000/- from him, it may be directed not to add this amount in the subsequent bills and not to disconnect the telephone. With the complaint, demand note dated 2.2.90 and photostat copies of the letters were filed. On 19.2.90, the District Forum directed the Complainant to deposit Rs. 5,000/- within 15 days and on such deposit being made it was ordered that the telephone in question will not be disconnected.

The Opposite Party filed version of the case dated 2.3.90. It denied the averments made in the complaint. The main defence taken by the Opposite- Party is contained in paras 3 and 7 of the version of the case which read as under: It was pleaded that the complainant''s telephone was kept under observation from 11.12.89 and according to the report of M.L.O.E. the Complainant had used it for S .T.D. Calls in excess and as such the bill in question is correct. It was submitted that the telephone of the Complaint is working properly. Photostat copy of the statement showing the calls made from Oct. 4, 1989 and onwards was also submitted.

PARTIES did not produce any evidence before the District Forum. Even affadivits were not filed. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 1.3.90 holding that the bill dated 1.12.89 sent to the Complainant for Rs. 17,090/- was correct and according to the rules. Hence this appeal.

WE heard Mr. C.P. Goel, authorised representative of the apellant and Mr. N.P. Rawat S.S.O. and Mr. Devendra Mohan Mathur, Advocate for Mr. N.C. Chaudhary, Advocate for the Respondent and considered the record. In para 5 of the complaint, the Complainant has given a statement of the bills dated 1.4.88 to 1.12.89 which is as under: - This statement has not been specifically denied by the Opposite Party. A perusal of it shows that the maximum amount of Rs. 604 is in the bill dated 1.8.88. In the bills Opreceding the bill in question, the amounts range from Rs. 251 to 604. The Complainant has another telephone No. 63843 on which there is S.T.D. facility. Admittedly, S.T.D. facility is not available on the telephone No. 65272 (New number 69198). The reason given by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant frequently dials S.T.D. Code and on account of this the machine gets heated and thereafter the complainant got S.T.D. numbers. In para 5 of the version of the case it has been stated that during the period of 12 days 295 S.T.D. Calls were record in the meter. In order to stop misuse of the telephone, the complainant''s telephone was changed to S.T.D. barred group. No affidavit substantiating the above facts was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. Even if, the complainant attempted to dial S.T.D. Call numbers on telephone No. 69198 (old Number 65272) and got S .T.D. calls, there is deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party because when there was no S.T.D. facility available on the telephone, how could the complainant get S.T.D. Calls. The instrument may not be working properly. A perusal of the bills from 1.4.88 to 20.10.89 shows that the local calls made did not exceed 148 whereas in the bill in question, local calls mentioned are 16696. The number of calls is such that even if S.T.D. calls were made as suggested, the calls could not be 16696. The District Forum relying on the report based on observation came to the conclusion that the bill sent was proper and correct. It did not apply its mind to the pleadings of the parties. For the reason mentioned above, we are unable to uphold the order of the dismissal of the complaint. After the receipt of the bill dated 1.12.89, the complainant had deposited Rs. 1,090/- under protest of his own accord. This amount is determind as just and proper for payment of the bill in question. The complainant has deposited Rs. 5,000/- in pursuance of the order of the District Forum passed on 19.2.90. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- will be adjusted in the bills that have been issued or will be issued after telephone No. 65272 (New number 69198) is re-connected. The opposite party is directed not to recover/realize the balance Rs. 11,000/- from the complainant-appellant in respect of the bill dated 1.12.89 and to restore telephone No. 65272 (New number 69198) within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dated 1.3.90 dismissing the complaint is set aside. The following directions are given: (1) Payment of Rs. 1,090/-made by the complainant will be considered towards the payment of bill dated 1.12.89 and no further amount is recoverable. (2) Rs. 5,000/-deposited in pursuance of the order of the District Forum dated 19.2.90, will be adjusted towards the bills that have been issued subsequent to the bill dated 1.12.89 and the bills that may be issued in future after reconnection of the telephone, in question. (3) That Oppossite Party-Respondent will not recover balance of Rs. 11,000/- from the complainant appellant. (4) The Opposite Party-respondent will reconnect telephone No. 65272 (New number 69198) within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

THE appeal is allowed to the limited extent stated here in above. Parties shall bear their respective costs of the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.