Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 26 (UTT)

Union of India v. Raksha Devi

2004-04-08

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT This in an appeal against the order dated 03.04.1998 passed by His District Forum, Hardwar whereby the appellant Union of India was directed to issue corrected bills and to adjust the deposit of Rs. 2,4542/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two) and to restore the connection without STD facility and further to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) & cost of litigation of Rs. 1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five hundred). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint with the allegations that has taken a telephone no. 440134 for his use from the Door Sanchar Vibhag. on 08.10.1994, a bill of Rs. 248/- (Rupees Two Hundred Forty Eight) was issued. The complainant deposited this amount. Thereafter on 01.10.1994, the Door Sanchar Vibhag issued another bill demanding rent of 5 months and showing 1966 calls. The complainant has usually made 25-30 calls in a month. She has not made 1966 calls. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 2, 542/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two) under protest and wrote a letter to the Department. Again on 01.12.1994, a bill was received wherein 3227 calls were shown and on 01.02.1995. wherein 1752, calls were shown. The complainant has not made such calls. Then the complainant made a complaint to the local office and applied for disconnection of STD facility. The opposite party has committed deficiency in its service. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that it is wrong to say that complainant has made' only 25-30 calls in a month. She has actually used the STD facility. The bills as sent were correct bills. The complainant has never applied for disconnection of STD facility. She has applied for dynamic STD lock system, which was given to her.. It was alleged that the complaint did not lie. 4. The telephone department filed the affidavit of Sh. Bajendra Narayan and alleged and there was proper inquiry and the bills were found correct. The complainant has herself used the STD facility very freely. The telephone department has filed the details of STD facility used by the complainant. 5. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint: Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 6. Notice was issued to the opposite party but she did not appear. The telephone department has filed the details of STD facility used by the complainant. 5. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint: Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 6. Notice was issued to the opposite party but she did not appear. Again a registered notice was sent, which was not returned, it is presumed to have been served. None appeared for the respondent and the appellant was heard exparte. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The telephone of the complainant was provided with. a STD facility. The details of the calls done by the complainant have also been given before the Learned Forum and of the details were given, the complainant could have very well judged whether she has used this STD facility or not? Merely by saying that she has made only 25-30 calls in a month, she cannot prove her case. There" is no allegation or proof of any misuse of the telephone. There is no allegation of any metering defect. The Learned Forum has thrown the responsibility to prove the case on the telephone department whereas the total burden to prove was that on the complainant. It has been decided by the Learned Forum that there is no evidence that dynamic STD lock system was provided to the complainant and she has not applied for disconnection of STD facilely. There was specific pleading of the appellant to this effect. The complainant did not file any counter affidavit that she was not using the dynamic STD lock system or that it was not provided to her. It is settled principle of law that by application of rule of thumb, the Learned Forum has got no jurisdiction to say what should have been and what are the actual calls of the complainant. We are supported by the rulings reported in I (1991) CPJ 48. The District Manager, Telephones and Others Vs. Niti Saran, II (1991) CPJ 579. Divisional Manager Telephones, Lucknow Vs. Madhu Enterprise in the ruling of Madhu Enterprises, the National Commission has held that the Forums have no power to fix the number of calls, which the Forum considers as reasonable. The same view has been confirmed in the ruling reported in 1 (1996) CPJ 49 (NC) Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa Vs. Mrs. Madhu Enterprise in the ruling of Madhu Enterprises, the National Commission has held that the Forums have no power to fix the number of calls, which the Forum considers as reasonable. The same view has been confirmed in the ruling reported in 1 (1996) CPJ 49 (NC) Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa Vs. Mrs. Sheela H.N. Gannekar. In view of what has been said above, the complainant was not entitled to any relief, her complaint should have been dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 03:04.1998 is hereby quashed. The complaint is also dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.