Telecom District Engineer vs PARMILA PRASAD

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 8 of 1992. The appellant before this Commission was the opposite party and the respondent before us was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. THE complainant filed a case before the District Forum alleging that the telephone bills, for the period 11.3.91 to 1.1.92 was excessive and unjustified and for the non-payment of that bill his telephone connection has been disconnected which was illegal on the part of the opposite party. It appears that the complainant claimed Rs. 1300/- as compensation against the opposite party. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed counter version. The District Forum on the basis of the allegation made by the complainant in the complaint petition and averment made by the respondent in its counter version. On the basis of this the District Forum decided the case and directed the O.P. to sent fresh bill on the basis of the bills sent by the department for the earlier periods prior to the period in question and also pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental harassment and tension undergone by her due to negligence on the part of the opposite party.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum has erred in directing the opposite party to prepare fresh bill for the period in question on the basis of past bill. There is substance in this submission. The National Commission has held in number of cases that a Consumer Court will not be legally justified in taking over the function of estimating by application of rule of thumb the prescribed number of calls made unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the telephone by some unauthorised person in collusion with the employees of the department. Particularly in cases where a subscriber has S.T.D. facility. But in this case mere is no such evidence. Rather no evidence was produced by the either party. It was not proper for the District Forum to decide the matter and hold so only because the opposite party did not produce any officer before the District Forum and draw adverse inference on this basis against the opposite party. It appears that the District Forum has lost sight of the Section 13(2) of the Act. It is very clearly laid down by the National Commission that the consumer disputes should be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite party where on being noticed the opposite party appears and denies the allegations of the complainant. Under these circumstances we find and hold that the impugned order passed by the District Forum can not be sustained.

IN the result the appeal is being allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The case however is being remanded to the District Forum to decide the consumer dispute after giving proper opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence is support of the respective cases. There is no order however as to costs. Let a copy of the order with the records of the District Forum be sent immediately to the District Forum for expeditious deposal of the case preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed.