SAPTAHIK KABIR ARCHANA vs S.D.O., TELEPHONES

THE present petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes u Redressal Commission, Basti alleging that he was subscriber of telephone connection No. 2767 and his telephone had been wrongly disconnected on the ground of non-payment of bills. The bills were excessive and, therefore, he had not paid them. According to him, STD facility on his telephone was not heard inspite of his request made on 16th March, 1989 and somebody was misusing that facility and thus the bills were excessive. He claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day and also prayed for reconnection of his telephone and barring of STD facility.

THE complaint was resisted by the Respondents, i.e. the S.D.O., Telephones, Basti, who averred that the telephone had been disconnected for non-payment of bills. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the complaint, the S.T.D. facility was barred. Therefore, that grievance of the complainant no longer exists. The District Forum held that there was no evidence that there was some defect in the metering equipment and, therefore, the bills could not be held to be excessive. Accordingly it was further held that the disconnection of the complainant''s telephone, which was on account of non-payment of bills was not improper. It d is-missed the complaint.

THE complainant filed appeal before the State Commission at Lucknow which confirmed the findings of the, District Forum and dismissed the appeal. He has now filed this Revision Petition.

WE have gone through the records and heard the submissions advanced by the petitioner. We find that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have held that the bills could not be termed excessive and thus the disconnection was not illegal and therefore, the complainant was entitled to reconnection of the telephone only on payment of the dues and the reconnection charges. This is a finding of fact arrived at by them. The finding is not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. As a result we dismiss the present Revision Petition. There is no order as to costs.