S.K.Pandey vs DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION THROUGH S.D.O. (PHONES), JIND

THIS appeal by the consumer-appellant is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jind partly allowing the complaint.

THE appellant Shri S.K. Pandey is a subscriber of Telephone No. 5447 at Jind. Admittedly he is an employee of M/s. Haryana Equipments Ltd. at Jind and the said telephone was installed at his residence on the 6th of April, 1991 for the primal purpose of getting incoming urgent messages from his Head Office which admittedly is at Calcutta and from other parties. His primal grievance was against three bills for telephonic charges dated the 11th July, 1991, 11th September, 1991and 11th November, 1991 aggregating to a sum of Rs. 5,098/-. THE appellant made a representation to the department about excessive billing and thereafter he received a provisional bill amounting to Rs. 2,898/- and was provisionally given a rebate of Rs. 2,200/- on two thousand metered calls. Under duress, he deposited the amount and raising various grievances he knocked at the door of the District Forum. The respondents resolutely defended the complaint. A number of preliminary objections were taken to which a reference is unnecessary. On merits, the firm plea taken was that the complainant is an official of M/s. Haryana Equipments Ltd., Jind which is a prosperous business concern having its Head Office at Calcutta. The said telephone which has the S.T.D. facility was being frequently used for making calls to Calcutta. In particular it was pointed out that after the telephone was converted to the Electronic Exchange the computerised print out thereof (which was stated to be attached to the written statement but is not traceable on the present record) clearly indicated the out-station calls to the head office. The position with regard to the three bills was clarified and it was pointed out that the department had rather generously allowed a rebate for as many as 2000 calls and the rest of the amount charged was stoutly defended as genuine and correct.

The District Forum in its order noticed that as regards the primal point of grievance with regard to the bill dated the 11th September, 1991 for Rs. 3,842/-, the same had already been reduced to Rs. 2,898/- by giving a rebate of as many as two thousand local calls. It further recorded that the appellant''s sole grievance with regard thereto was that the said rebate had been given provisionally and the controversy is likely to be raked up again. This apprehension was however ill-founded because the department had asserted that the said rebate had been given finally. As regards the other bills, the District Forum found no material in support of the suggested grievance and allegations of the complainant. Consequently, it was directed that the revised provisional bill allowing a rebate of 2 thousand local calls be treated as a final one and adjustment be made accordingly.

MR. D.R. Bansal, the learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss for any meaningful challenge to the order under appeal. It was halfheartedly argued that because a rebate of two thousand local calls had been given by the department this was a positive proof of the metering system being faulty. We are unable to agree. There is not even a serious allegation of defective metering far from any evidence whatsoever on this score. Merely because the respondent-department had been somewhat fair and charitable in granting the rebate is not to boomrang upon them as an admission of faulty metering. The contention has only to be noticed and rejected. The only other submission made on behalf of the appellant was that there was no adequate foundation for the respondent-department''s stand that the STD facility was being used for long distance calls being made to Calcutta.

WE are equally unable to find any modicum of merit in the aforesaid submission. It is not in dispute that the employee''s concern is a business organization of some standing. It was conceded before us that its headquarters were at Calcutta. Now is it in doubt that the subscriber enjoys the STD facility and had made use thereof. Equally it is a common ground that this very telephone has been later converted to an electronic one. With regard thereto the firm case of the appellant in the written statement was that computerised print out thereof indicated long distance calls to the Head Office at Calcutta. Though a reference to this computerised billing was made but the same was not on the record. Mr. Walia, the learned Counsel for the respondent had produced the same and the authenticity thereof could not be assailed on behalf of the appellant by his learned Counsel. This print out record clearly indicated long distance calls having been made to Calcutta and two of them were shown to have consumed as high a number as 396 and 235 units for a single call. The stand of the respondent-department is thus more than amply borne out. Lastly, it bears repetition that the appellant had himself confined his primal relief that the provisional rebate of 2000 local calls given to him, may not be reagitated. This relief has already been granted by the District Forum and has not been challenged by way of appeal by the respondent-department. Any further claim in this context by the appellant has clearly no legs to stand upon. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________