Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 325 (UTT)

Union of India v. Rajarshi Shukla

2005-08-04

LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Surendra Kumar, Acting President — This is an appeal against the order dated 13.9.1999 passed by District Forum, Haridwar whereby the appellant was directed to cancel the bill dated 1.8.1993 of Rs. 6,461/- and bill dated 1.6.1995 of Rs. 14,490/- and to issue fresh bills on the basis of average of last 6 months and to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant and if any amount remains after adjustment, the complainant shall get interest @ 15% on that amount. The appellant was further directed to restore the STD facility of the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. l.000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of telephone No. 425335. The said telephone is also having STD facility. He was not issued the bill from 7.5.1992 to 1.6.1993 and on inquiry it was told that the bill is not ready. On 19.8.1993 the connection was disconnected illegally without any information to the complainant. On 20.8. 1993 the opposite party issued a bill for the period from 7.5.1992 to 1.6.1993 amounting to Rs. 13,447/-including Rs. 100/- as reconnection charges. The opposite party sent another bill of Rs. 6,461/-. He made a complaint against the said bill and asked for inquiry but the opposite party did not make any inquiry and on 4.7.1997 said that the bill was correct and asked the complainant to make the payment. He again received a bill for the period from 15.3.1996 to 15.9.1996 for Rs. 14,490/-, whereof the complainant asked the details and the opposite party sent details from 5.3.1996 to 7.3.1996 and 16.5.1996 to 31.5.1996, although this period did not relate to the period of the bill. It is alleged that in the said details, there were no full details of 7.5.1996 to 15.5.1996 and the bill for the said period was about Rs. 10,000/- and it was only for a week. The complainant requested to correct the bill but the bills disconnected. On inquiry by the complainant, he was given the bill and on deposit of restoration charges, his connection was reconnected. The complainant has fully used the telephone and also the STD facility. On request by the complainant for inquiry, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the bill sent to the complainant was correct. The complainant made the payment after being fully satisfied. The complainant has fully used the telephone and also the STD facility. On request by the complainant for inquiry, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the bill sent to the complainant was correct. The complainant made the payment after being fully satisfied. There is no defect in the bill. No defect was found in the meter and D. P. box of the complainant. It is further alleged that there was dynamic lock facility in the telephone of the complainant, and when locked his telephone, it could not be used by any other person. There is no deficiency in the services of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. 4. The complainant did not appear and therefore the appeal was heard ex-parte. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has not given the details from 7.5.1996 to 15.5.1996 and the opposite party is not entitled to recover any amount for this period because they have not supplied any details. The telephone department has filed the details and in the details, the detail of 7.5.1996 is given at Sl. No. 17, in which the duration is 312 and CPLT is 104. This shows that the telephone was used and call was made from the telephone. The called number has also been mentioned which is 06123677811. The appellant in its written statement has also pleaded that there is dynamic lock facility available in the telephone of the complainant and in presence of dynamic lock facility, if there is any misuse of the telephone, the telephone department is not liable for that. The appellant has also alleged that on the request of the complainant, an inquiry was made and the bill was found as correct. In our view the telephone of the complainant was having dynamic lock facility and the bills was issued according to the use of the telephone by the complainant. There is no evidence available on record to show that the meter or the D.R Box was defective. In our view the telephone of the complainant was having dynamic lock facility and the bills was issued according to the use of the telephone by the complainant. There is no evidence available on record to show that the meter or the D.R Box was defective. In our opinion the telephone department issued the bills as per their rules and regulations and as per the user of the telephone by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service of the appellant and the Learned Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint. This appeal is fit to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 13.9.1999 passed by the Learned Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be easy. Appeal allowed. *******