🖨️ Print / Download PDF

DISTRICT TELECOM ENGINEER, TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT Vs SEVA RAM

Date of Decision: May 2, 1995

Citation: 1996 3 CPJ 236

Hon'ble Judges: N.C.Sharma , Firoza Bano J.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

1. THIS appeal has been filed by the District Telecommunication Engineer, Kota against the order of the District Forum, Kota dated 22.5.92.

Although the Counsels for the parties were present on 13.2.95, but none appeared on 17.4.95 and today. The complainant-respondent had filed a

complaint in the District Forum, Kota alleging that the telephone bill for local calls for the period from 16.9.90 to 15.11.90 received by him with

respect to his telephone No. 23489 was inflated and excessive. He made a complaint regarding this in the Telecommunication Department.

According to the complainant, the inflated telephone bill was due to defect in the meter.

2. THE opposite party-appellant in its version mentioned that upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, necessary investigation was

carried out and no defect in the meter was found.

It is clear from the record of the District Forum that the opposite party-appellant did not produce any investigation report regarding the meter. If

has not at all been established by it that investigation was carried out upon receiving a complaint from the complainant and no defect in the meter

was found. When a consumer makes a complaint regarding excessive telephone billing, the Telecommunication Department has to investigate his

complaint. That was not done in the instant case.

The complainant proved by documentary evidence in the shape of previous telephone bills since 16.9.86 to 15.9.90 that he never received

telephone bill of local calls exceeding an amount of Rs. 232/-. This is very clear from at least six or seven preceding telephone bills produced by

the complainant. The bill in dispute was with respect to an amount of Rs. 2388/- for local calls. Clearly this telephone bill was very much excessive.

It was ten times the preceding telephone bills. The Telecommunication Deptt did not carry out any investigation. There was thus deficiency in

service. The District Forum rightly granted relief to the complainant-respondent.

3. THIS appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.