Union of India vs PRITAM SINGH MOTI

THIS is an appeal by Union of India against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun directing the appellant to adjust the deposits of the complainant after collecting the bill considering the call of 433 only in each bill.

IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is in a habit to file complaint against the appellant on each bills. We do not want to say whether the complainant is harassing the appellant or the appellant is harassing the complainant. But, atleast, one thing is true that no complaint of the complainant has been dismissed by the learned Forum which will lead to a conclusion that the complainant is not at fault. He is only pursuing his legal remedy, when not getting justice from the appellant Department. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had a telephone connection. He has got barred his telephone S.T.D. from 1985, itself. There was no S.T.D. facility in his telephone in the disputed months where the bill of the complainant was for Rs. 6,313/- and Rs. 2,632/-. The complainant is not a business concern or industrial concern. This is a personal telephone and any telephone without S.T.D. facility cannot be used for a sum of Rs. 6,313/- in one or two months. It was argued by the learned Counsel that the telephone of the complainant was under S.T.D. group and a facility of dynamic lock has been given to each consumer and the complainant should have locked his telephone instead of making complaint against the appellant. After 1985 the complainant never demanded any S.T.D. facility and to keep the complainant within S.T.D. group out of its own does not appear to be justified. However, the complainant wrote for number of times even after 1985 to withdraw his S.T.D. facility. A few such letters have been produced for our perusal as well. Even on 17.2.1994 before few months of the disputed bills also, the complainant has given such a letter. But still, its facility was not withdrawn.

In the written statement also, the appellant pleaded that the complaint of the complainant regarding excess billing for bill dated 1.6.1994 was duly examined and provisional bill was issued keeping 2000 calls under dispute. It is said that rebate of this bill was given. If there was no defect in meter, if there was no misuse of his telephone, why such a rebate was given. Not only this in one of the written statement in the earlier complaint of the complainant, the appellant filed written statement on 15.7.1994 admitting some defect in meter.

UNLESS a man has gone mad, such calls as have been given in these two bills is not possible from a domestic telephone installed for domestic purpose. The rebate has also been given to the complainant admitting that there has been some metering defect. It is also mis-use of power not to withdraw the S.T.D. facility even on the request of the complainant and when the complainant was not using the S.T.D. facility from 1985, itself, there was no sense in putting him in S.T.D. group and even if he was put in S.T.D. group, there was no sense in continuing S.T.D. facility inspite of the repeated request of the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred certain rulings and also the judgment of this Commission that the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to apportion the bill and to fix certain amount of calls by application of rule of thumb. This is true, but the rulings does not apply where there is defect is metering equipment or allegation of misuse of particular telephone by the employees of the Department. Here is this particular case, metering defect is admitted by giving the complainant a rebate and misuse of particular telephone may not be proved but mis-use of authority is fully proved by not withdrawing the S.T.D. facility and unnecessarily giving S.T.D. facility inspite of the request of the consumer. In these circumstances, a petition shall lie before the Consumer Forum. There is no law that Telephone Department is above every Department and it may be deficient or negligent in service to the consumer, still a complaint shall not lie before the District Forum. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.