TELECOM, DEHRA DUN vs HUKUM CHAND CHELA RAM

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.11.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehra Dun whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the Telephone Department was directed to give rebate of Rs. 30,551/- (Rupees thirty thousand five hundred fifty one only) in the bills dated 1.5.1993 and 1.7.1993.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the consumer of Telephone No. 26439. It has got no S.T.D. facility from 1991. THE average bill of his telephone was not more than Rs. 850/- (Rupees eight hundred fifty only) but the two bills dated 1.5.1993 and 1.7.1993 were respectively for Rs. 6,826/- (Rupees six thousand eight hundred twenty six only) and Rs. 25,725/- (Rupees twenty five thousand seven hundered twenty five only). It is said that the complainant made several requests but it was not heard and then he filed the complaint before the learned Forum. According to the appellant, it is true that the telephone of the complainant was without S.T.D. facility but resistance of the complainant''s telephone was burnt, therefore, he utilized S.T.D. facility and, therefore, there was bill. Regarding the bill of 1.5.1993 there was an inquiry and the Telephone Department directed the complainant to pay only Rs. 1,564/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred sixty four only). This is admitted fact that the complainant did not use the S.T.D. facility from 1991. The bills filed by the complainant show that the Telephone Department has charged a sum of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) as S.T.D. bar balance in the bill dated 9.9.1991. When the S.T.D. facility was barred therefrom there was no question of any use or misuse of S.T.D. facility by the complainant. No evidence has been given to show that this is the complainant who has used the S.T.D. facility. Without any S.T.D. facility being used there cannot be a bill of Rs. 25,725/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand seven hundred twenty five only) in a telephone like this.

The learned Counsel for the Telephone Department Mr. Anurag Gupta produced the ruling of National Commission reported in I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR 102, The District Manager, Telephones & Ors. v. Niti Saran. This ruling shall not apply to the facts of the present case. We agree that the learned Forum has got no jurisdiction to estimate by application of rule of thumb the precise number of calls made and the charges therefor in a particular period of time but in this ruling itself it is mentioned that if there is adequate evidence to show that metering equipment was defective and if there has been misuse of a particular telephone then the District Forum has got jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In this case it is admitted fact that the resistance of the complainant''s telephone was burnt. This is not said to have been done by the complainant. If this was burnt it was the duty of the Telephone Department to remove the defect. The complainant could not have helped in it and if others used S.T.D. facility, then the complainant is not responsible for that. There is no evidence of direct user of S.T.D. in the telephone by the complainant.

IN these circumstances the order passed by the learned Forum is perfectly justified. We do not find any reason to interfere in that. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.