SOW. SHANTABAI PRALHADRAO JAGATKAR vs TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant as also the respondent. WE have carefully gone through the material available in the record and proceedings of this appeal paper-book. WE have also read the order impugned thereunder.

APPELLANT herein is the original complainant and respondents are the original O.Ps. (hereinafter appellant be referred to as "complainant" and respondents as "O.Ps."). Against the order dated 12.6.1997 of the District Forum of dismissal of complaint, complainant has filed this appeal. Few relevant facts : Complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No. 42049 at the place of Latur. It appears somewhere in January, 1994, the said telephone was provided with STD facility. Complainant approached the District Forum with the grievance that the bills raised and issued by the O.P. in respect of the said telephone were inflated. Various such bills were questioned by the complainant right from the period dated 1.12.1992 to 1.9.1994. Reference to such bills is to be found in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment dated 12.6.1997.

After receipt of the complaint, O.Ps. were noticed and they filed their written statement being Exhibit 6 on record as also documentary evidence in particular subscribers'' record card being Exhibit 9 on the file of the District Forum. O.Ps. challenged the case and claim of the complainant in respect of excess billing and asserted that the bills in question were correctly prepared on the basis of calls made by the complainant. There was no fault in the instrument or any allegations made of misuse as such. They strongly relied upon the subscriber''s record card in support of their case.

IT does not appear that complainant thereafter filed any further rejoinder to the written statement filed by the O.Ps. and the documents relied upon. IT is noticed from the impugned judgment of this appeal (refer paragraph 5 thereof) that complainant was also diligent and prompt in prosecution of his complaint. As a matter of fact, District Forum records that neither the complainant nor her Advocate appeared at the later stage of the complaint i.e. after completion of filing of the pleadings. Eventually the District Forum proceeded to dispose of the claim and case of the complainant on the basis of the material available before it. Across the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that no material was made available by the O.P. to meet the case of the complainant of over-billing. It was asserted that the District Forum proceeded on wrong assumption and without any basis and evidence has held the complainant having failed to prove case of excessive billing. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of dismissal is not justified.

IN view of what is recorded by the District Forum in its impugned order, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by and on behalf of the appellant in terms as aforesaid. District Forum has taken pains to examine and scrutinize the material made available before it. This has reflected from the reasoning as assigned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment. We only think it appropriate and it would be sufficient that said paragraphs 6 and 7 of the District Forum are reproduced hereinbelow : "6. At the beginning, it is necessary to point out that the complainant has adduced nothing as proof. She only kept it saying in the complaint petition that her telephone bills were not commensurate with the user of the phone. We think that the indications are not here to be able to say with certainty that the bills complained of were unjustified. One thing needs pointed attention. On behalf of the opposite parties, subscriber''s record card, pertaining to complainant, has been filed with list Exh. 9. A look at it will show that the calls made by the complainant have been correctly factored, valued and assessed. There is more to it than meets the eye. The complainant did not make clear whether she used STD facility on her telephone. But the card shows that there was flow of calls. It is, further, evident to note that the complainant went fishing global waters insofar as the calls have been made outside INdia also. It is mainly due to such calls, the bills went high and high. She has made nay number of calls. Viewing, the merits of this exhibit (subscriber''s card), we think surely there is no case for pointing out that the billing was not on the line of user of the telephone. 7. Another aspect gets into reckoning. It has been pointed out by the opposite parties that the equipment known as telecom equipment was found to be in order. No faults were noticed in the checking, which was conducted, when the complainant came out with verbal and written complaints against the billing. Sound mechanism would guarantee good performance. It is in such a context that we feel that the grievance of the complainant was not justified."

If one reads the reasoning assigned by the District Forum in the aforesaid judgment, it certainly demonstrates that the District Forum has applied its mind to whatever material that was made available before it and carefully scrutinized it. IN this matter mere assertion at such a belated stage would not help. IN our view, the District Forum has considered the matter from all the angles and there is nothing that has made available before us to deviate from the view taken by the District Forum. IN such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. We hold that the order of the District Forum is sound and reasonable needing no interference. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.