CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1998) 08 NCDRC CK 0005

Yasmin Sultana vs Rupaben D Patel

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 18 August 1998 · Citation: 1998 2 CLT 323 : 1998 2 CPC 546 : 1998 2 CPJ 40 : 1998 2 CPR 20

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.B.GARG , SADA NAND , P.OJHA J.
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 377 words

1.WING Commander M.M.S. Duggal resident of H. No. 1004, Sector 36 -B, is subscriber of Telephone No. 534588. He had the grievance that his two bills for the period 26.4.1992 to 25.6.1992 for Rs. 979/ - and for 26.6.1992 to 25.8.1992 for Rs. 1,426/ - were excessive. The two complaints have been dismissed by the District Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh on 5.8.1997. Aggrieved against it, the present two appeals have been preferred.

2.

THE main grievance of the appellant is that he is a retired Army Officer and number of calls had been very small. The details of bill for the earlier period given by the appellant in Annexure A.I are reproduced as under: "Consumption of Local Calls as shown in various hills. Period of bill Amount 24.6.1991 to 23.8.1991 Rs. 38/ - 24.8.1991 to 25.10.1991 Rs. 246/ - 26.10.1991 to 25.12.1991 Rs. 170/ - 25.12.1991 to 25.2.1992 Rs. 370/ - 26.3.1992 to 25.4.1992 Rs 500/ -"

The learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that even prior to the receipt of the bills in question he had been requesting the Department to provide the "control facility" but his request was ignored. There is another important plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the print -out of the calls has not been produced in Court by the respondents and it has been withheld. Where the print -out is demanded by the consumer and he has also approached the Court, the Department is expected to bring the print -out to the notice of the District Forum. The fact that it has been withheld goes against the respondent. Keeping in view the bills for the earlier period referred to above we hold that bill for the period 26.6.1992 to 15.8.1992 is excessive and it should not have been for more than Rs. 980/ -. The conclusion is that in Appeal No. 143 of 1997 it is ordered that instead of Rs. 1,426/ - only a sum of Rs. 980/ - was recoverable. The excess amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded or adjusted during the next four months. The bill of Rs. 979/ - about which Appeal No. 44 of 1997 has been attempted does not call for interference and it is hereby dismissed. Ordered accordingly.