TELECOM DIVISIONAL ENGINEER vs PAUCHARI PRESS

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1993 in Complaint Case Nos. 105/1992 and 209/1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mathura.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the Complaint No. 105/1992 has been filed by the complainant with the allegations that he had Telephone No. 4924. This telephone was installed in his premises in 1982. From the year 1989 this telephone used to remain ideal. Hence it could not be used. THE bills for this telephone were received for the amount of Rs. 160/- to Rs. 256/- which were deposited by the complainant. For the months of February and April, 1990 bills of Rs. 817/- and Rs. 845/- were received which were of excess amount. During this period the telephone remained dead and inspite of several reminder the defects were not removed. This telephone was disconnected on 10.5.1990. In Complaint Case No. 203/1992 it is alleged that the complainant was having Telephone No. 5110. The bills for the period February, 1990 and April, 1990 came of inflated amount for which the complaint was lodged but the telephone has been disconnected in the month of March, 1992.

The opposite party in its written statements alleged that the bills were sent correctly and the telephone was never dead. As the amount of the bill was not paid and hence the telephone was disconnected.

THE parties lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and hence ordered that both the telephones be energised and the bill for the months of February and April, 1990 are amended for Rs. 352.80 and those bills shall be paid within 15 days by the complainants. It was also directed that no meter rent shall be charged from the complainant till the period the telephone remained disconnected. It was further directed that a sum of Rs. 200/- shall be paid as cost and Rs. 1,500/- was directed to be paid as damages.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party, Telephone Department, has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. On the date of hearing none was present even though notices were sent for the date fixed on service postal stamps. At the outset it may be stated that two complaint cases were filed by the complainants and a common judgment was delivered by the District Forum. But in each case appeals have to be filed separately. A common appeal against the judgment of two cases, even though disposed by a single judgment, cannot be filed. Therefore, the present appeal is treated as appeal in Complaint Case No. 105/1992 which was filed earlier. A perusal of the file will go to show that the allegation of the complainant was that the telephone which was installed in 1982 was working satisfactorily and in the year 1989 it remained defective. Inspite of complaints made to the department, the defect was not rectified. The complainant received bills in February and April for the period in which the telephone remained dead. The telephone, therefore, was disconnected.

IF the complainant had made a complaint about the defective telephone, then the department should have rectified the defects and after the defects are rectified then only the bills should have been sent. When the telephone was not used by the complainant the department should not have issued the bills. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case the judgment and order of the learned District Forum in respect of this complaint is perfectly correct.

IN respect to the other Complaint Case No. 203/1992 it has already been said earlier that one appeal cannot be filed against the judgment of two cases. Therefore, this appeal is not being treated as an appeal against Complaint Case No. 203/1992. Thus keeping in view the facts of the case the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.