TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs R.MOHAN

THIS is an appeal by the opposite party.

THE case of the complainant is as follows: For his phone bearing No. PY 71415 he received a bill dated 18.7.95-containing charges for a trunk call to the tune of Rs. 295/which he did not make. He sent a Lawyer''s notice regarding the trunk call charges. THE opposite party by a letter-dated 20.11.95 admitted that there was wrong billing and agreed to adjust the said amount in the ensuing bills. However, they sent a bill-dated 1.12.95 for Rs. 210/- without adjusting the amount as agreed to. THE complainant had to go to the Accounts Officer, explain the matter to him and get a ''Nil endorsement'' in the bill-dated 1.12.95. In spite of this, his phone was disconnected from 28.12.95 regarding outgoing calls. Upon another legal notice by the complainant, the telephone was restored on 21.6.96 The case of opposite party was that as per the arrangement the adjustment agreed to on 20.11.95 could be reflected only in the bill covering a period beyond 20.11.95 and not in the next bill covering the period upto 15.11.95.

The Trial Court found that there was deficiency in service in this case and negligence on the part of the Department and passed the following order: "The opposite party shall pay to the complainant: (a) Rs. 2,000/as compensation; (b) To give the complainant full rental rebate for the period from 4.1.96 to 22.1.96 and (c) Rs. 300/-as costs; (d) This amount be paid within a month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which it shall carry an interest at 12% p.a."

EVEN though the complainant prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, he did not file any cross-appeal in this case. The case of the opposite party/appellant is that there was no deficiency in service nor negligence. The case of the appellant is hard to accept. It is an admitted fact that there was wrong billing. The Department has agreed to adjust the excess amount paid only after Lawyer''s notice and personal representation. After conveying this to the complainant by letter-dated 20.11.95, the Department ought to have made adjustment in the next bill dated 1.12.95. EVEN if this was not done by outright or any other reason, it is hard to explain how the officer in charge of collection of charges can report non-payment for a bill in which there was nil endorsement with instruction to field staff to operate disconnection. At any rate, disconnecting the telephone under these circumstances is most offending to a subscriber, for which the Department should have tendered apology. At any rate Deficiency of Service and negligence are made out on more than a count. It is also seen in this case that the complainant was compelled to issue legal notice twice. The compensation awarded can in no manner be said to be on the high side. EVEN though in the body of the judgment the Forum opined that full rebate for the whole period shall be refunded, in the operative portion, the rebate has been confined to the period during which the telephone was disconnected. So the observation in the body of the judgment is to be ignored. With this observation the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. _______________