Telecom District Engineer vs OM PRAKASH MARWAHA

FIRST Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 1994 have been preferred by the Telecom District Engineer, Hoshiarpur and are directed against the analogous and virtually identical orders of the District Forum, Ropar. Since the primal issue herein is common, this order will govern both the appeals.

IN view of the fact that the present appeals could not be seriously pressed, the facts may be noticed with relative brevity. The respondent, Om Parkash Marwaha has been having the telephone with STD facility since September, 1989 at his premises. He received two bills of telephone charges dated 26.11.1992 and 26.1.1993 for the recovery of Rs. 8,376/- and Rs. 8,385/- respectively. IN his complaint, he alleged that he had never received bills of such excessive amounts and to buttress his case, he gave details of the bills consistently from the 11th February, 1992 to 11th December, 1992 showing a very modest calling pattern consistently over this period despite the fact that he enjoyed the STD facility. Aggrieved thereby, he lodged a complaint in the Telephone Department and despite reminders, no response could be elicited from the Department. Subsequently, he had to knock at the door of the District Forum by way of his complaint. On notice being issued, the Telephone Department took-up the usual plea that the impugned bills were correct. It was specifically pleaded that on receipt of the complaint of the respondent, his metering and other equipments were checked by the competent Engineers and no fault was found with them. IN support thereof, the complainant placed on record a detail of the payments of the telephone bills from February, 1992 to December, 1992 and also relied on the report of the Accounts Officer, Hoshiarpur (Ex.A-1). The Telephone Department relied on the report (Ex. R-1) and the detail of bimonthly bills (Ex. R-2). The District Forum in its somewhat brief order, basically relied on its examination of the departmental file. It noticed therefrom that a rebate of 4000 calls had been suggested and recommended by the Accounts Officer, Hoshiarpur. Adopting the recommendations of the Accounts Officer, Hoshiarpur and the pattern of calls of the bills from February, 1992 to December, 1992. The District Forum proceeded to grant rebate of 5000 calls in complaint No. 97 of 1993 and a rebate of 7000 calls in complaint No. 48 of 1993. Feeling aggrieved, the Telephone Department has now come-up in appeals.

Mr. Gurcharan Singh, 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 a competent authority at all and that the District Forum was wholly in error in placing reliance on the noting made by the Accounts Officer, Hoshiarpur, who was not a technical man. It was the case that the competent authority''s opinion was only one, which was entitled to any weight. We do not find any modicum of merit in his submission.

WHAT first meets the eye herein is the fact that barring the disputed bills, the earlier use of the telephone indicated that the bills had never exceeded the permissible calls. WHAT is perhaps of significant fact is that the Accounts Officer, Hoshiarpur while recommending the rebate of 4000 calls and observed as under :- "No doubt STD facility is available but calling pattern is abnormal in both the disputed period. There might be some unknown technical fault which caused false metering. As such rebate is justified in this case."

The aforesaid observation of the Accounts Officer would, therefore, indicate that there was defective metering occasioned by the spurts and therefore, the Department''s official had suggested a rebate of as many as 4000 calls. 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 was accorded by the District Forum. We, therefore, uphold and affirm the order under appeal.

THE appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 300/- only. Appeals dismissed.