S.D.O. TELEPHONES vs Shiv Shankar Prasad

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 16th June, 1992 passed by the District Forurn, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 3 of 92 in which the appellant here was the Opposite Party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

NECESSARY facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be mentioned in brief as follows:- The complainant has telephone bearing No. 2170 which was disconnected on the ground of non-payment of the bill dated 11.9.91 though the same had been paid by the complainant and that in January, 1992 a bill for Rs. 1244/- was sent to the complainant though there was no STD facility in the telephone of the complainant and the local calls cannot be to the extent of Rs. 1244.00. Hence the bill was excessive and inflated. The complainant on these grounds prayed for quashing the bill and also for compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 as damages for illegal disconnection. On being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed counter version admitting that the telephone of the complainant was by mistake disconnected on the ground of nonpayment of the bill dated 11.9.91 which had already been paid by the complainant. It has been admitted by them that the payment was made on 24.10.91 by the complainant but due to some technical reason the same could not be incorporated in his S.R.C. and for that his telephone was disconnected on 9th December, 1991 and after getting knowledge on 16.12.91 about the payment of the bill the telephone connection was immediately restored.

Opposite Party in the written version did not dispute or deny the allegation that the bill dated 1.1.92 for Rs. 1244.00 for the period 16.10.91 to 16.12.91 regarding the local calls was exessive and inflated and has averred that the complainant ought to have placed his grievances before the Accounts Officer Telegraphs, Hazaribagh who is vested with the power of review the cases of alleged excess due wrong billing. The Opposite Party also filed an additional show cause (written version) but in this show cause also they did not dispute or deny the averment made by the complainant that the bill dated 1.1.12 is excessive and inflated.

IT is apparent from the facts mentioned above that the Opposite Party admitted that there was illegal disconnection of the telephone of the complainant and has not disputed or denied the allegation that the bill for Rs. 1244.00 was excessive and inflated. Under these circumstances we see no reason to disbelieve the allegation made by the complainant that the bill is inflated and excessive. In this situation the District Forum have rightly directed the Opposite Party to correct the bill on the basis of the average of three proceeding bills. It is evident from the facts stated above that there has been deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party as a result of which the Opposite Party had to file a case before the District Forum and inconvenience was caused to the complainant, who is an Advocate. But the compensation of Rs. 2,000.00 in that respect appears excessive. We feel that compensation of Rs. 1000.00 will serve the ends of justice. With this modification in that amount of compensation the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 550.00 as cost to the respondent. Appeal dismissed with costs.