S.D.O.TELEPHONE vs PREM RAJ GAUR

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hissar whereby a rebate of 2,000 calls has been granted to the respondent in the disputed bill and the appellant-department has been directed to revise the same accordingly.

DR. Prem Raj Gaur is a senior citizen having retired since long from the department of Animal Husbandary, Punjab. In the complaint he averred that he was having the telephone facility since 1985 and till the 16th of July, 1991 his telephonic charges for the relevant period had never exceeded Rs. 300/- only. However, to his surprise, he received the bill dated October 1,1991 for the period from 16th of July, 1991 to 15th of September, 1991 for the inordinately high amount of Rs. 3,267/- which was patently erroneous. He strongly alleged that either the meter was defective or the telephone has been misused by the employees of the department. The firm case was that during most if not all of this period he was out of station and his house and telephone were locked. A complaint to the Telephone District Manager, Hissar afforded him no redressal, and consequently he resorted to the District Forum. The appellant-department in the written statement took up the plea that the excessive billing case of the complainant had been thoroughly examined but the competent authority had found no justification for the grant of any rebate. It was averred that the meter was checked on the 6th of September, 1991 and was found in good working order. The enquiry made by the technical staff was sought to be annexed to the written statement. In the replication filed by the complainant, he stoutly struck to his gun and elaborated his complaint. In support thereof, he placed on record his own affidavit and also a detail of the payments of the telephone bill from June, 1985 to the 10th of September, 1991 which clearly indicated that barring the disputed period the telephonic charges had been confined to merely the rental therefor and within the range of permissible calls. The appellant-department has not chosen to lead any evidence in rebuttal. The District Forum in its somewhat brief order basically relied on its examination of the departmental file. It noticed there from that a rebate of 2000 calls had been suggested and recommended by the lower staff but was rejected by the competent authority without assigning any reason. Adopting the recommendation of the staff alone, the District Forum proceeded to grant the relief noticed at the very out-set.

Mr. Arun Walia, learned Counsel for the appellant-department strongly assailed the operative part of the order under appeal. It was argued that the recommendation for the rebate was not that of the department or the competent authority at all, and that the District Forum was wholly in error in placing reliance on the nothings made by the ministerial Officers. It was the case that the competent authority''s opinion was the only one which was entitled to any weight.

IT is true that the order of the District Forum leaves much to be desired as regards a more comprehensive discussion of the merits of the case. ITs view that the suggestion or the notings of the ministerial Officers of the department are to have perponderance is perhaps not supportable at all. However, this by itself would not merit acceptance of the appeal to the prejudice of the complainant-consumer. What first meets the eye herein, is the fact that barring the disputed bill, the earlier use of the telephone for more than six years indicated that the bills had never exceeded the charge for the rental and the permissible calls. The respondent in his affidavit had categorically stated that during the period the house and the telephone was locked. It was expressly averred that the respondent''s wife had dies way back on the 6th of November, 1988 and as a widower, he had started living with his son at Rohtak and occasionally visited his locked up house at Hissar. It is significant that the complaint was not challenged by way of cross-examination nor was his documentary evidence assailed. What is more the appellant-department treated the matter cavalierly and did not lead a title of evidence in rebuttal. What is perhaps of conclusive significance fact that the appellants have now placed on record the proforma for excess metering cases duly filled in by their own official, the SubDivisional Officer (telephones), Hissar. Therein it has been expressly recorded as under:- "Spurt was observed on 15th of August, 1991 daily MR was taken after spurt observation." The aforesaid document would therefore, indicate that there was defective metering occasioned by the spurt. Mr. Walia in all fairness made the departmental file available to us afresh and therefrom also it was evident that it stood recorded that a spurt had in fact taken place on the said date. It was thus on adequately firm foundations that the department''s official had first suggested a rebate of as many as 2500 calls which were reduced to 2000 by the next ranking official. All this would make it manifest that the metering defect in the present case stands established and the respondent was entitled to the relief which has been accorded by the District Forum, Hisar though for a somewhat tenuous reason. For the additional grounds recorded, we uphold and affirm the order under appeal. This appeal is consequently dismissed with costs which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed with cost.