The Telephone Department is liable for excessive and unreasonable telephone bills and negligent handling of consumer complaints, and consumers are not liable for charges related to services they did not use.

Mr. Justice A.L Bahri, President — This appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of the District Forum dated April 25,1996, quashing telephone bill dated July 1, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 /- covering a period of about one year from July 9,1992 to May 15, 1991 for total calls of Rs. 29070/-. A direction was given to the Telephone Department to restore the telephone at the new address supplied by the complainant-Punjab Mandi Board. A sum of Rs. 5/000/- as compensation was allowed to the complainant to be paid by the Telephone Department with the further direction that the aforesaid amount be recovered from the official concerned found to be guilty in handling the case.

2. Telephone No. 58979 was used by Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer at his residence 37-C, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Regular bills for the period March, 1990 to January 1991, then from January, 1991 to March, 1991 and thereafter from March, 1991 to April, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 972/- Rs. 298 and Rs. 308/- respectively were received and paid. The bill in dispute was issued on July 1,1991 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 /-, which was alleged to be highly excessive, illegal, due to wrong metering and most probably misuse of telephone by the officials of the Telephone Department by tampering the STD facility. It was asserted that the bill dated July 1,1991 covered the amount of the bills earlier submitted and paid as referred to above. On receipt of the disputed bill, the complainant lodged a written complaint vide letter dated August 13,1991 which was followed by reminders dated November 7,1991 and April 3,1992, but no action was taken by the Telephone Department on the complaints referred to above. It was asserted that the complainant did not use the telephone for international calls or STD calls. He had no relation in USA and other countries. The complainant wrote another letter on August 14,1991 to the Telephone Department to disconnect the telephone and to keep it in safe custody temporarily and the same could be restored on request subsequently. The Telephone Department disconnected the telephone in November, 1991 and thus was not entitled to claim rent for the period August, 1991 to November, 1991. Vide separate letter dated October 25,1990, the complainant called upon the Telephone Department to disconnect STD facility, which was not done by the Telephone Department. On these allegations, the complaint was filed for quashing the bill aforesaid and for restoration of the telephone at the new address.

3. The opposite party contested the complaint by filing written reply. It was asserted that the telephone was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill dated July 1,1991 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 /- though subsequently the aforesaid amount was deposited. Generally, the allegations of the complainant were denied but there was no specific denial with respect to the three complaints lodged by the complainant in writing. The bill in dispute was alleged to be for calls made from the telephone in dispute. The meter was found to be correct. With respect to withdrawal of the STD facility, it was asserted that the complainant could lock the STD facility from the telephone instrument itself. No request was made for restoration of the telephone, which was disconnected on account of non-payment of the bill dated July 1,1991. If request is made, the matter could be examined by the General Manager, Telecom, Ludhiana for restoration. The complainant produced affidavit of Subhash Mahajan, Executive Engineer, which fully supports all the allegations levelled in the complaint. Copies of the three complaints made to the Telephone Department, reference of which was made in the complaint were produced alongwith the disputed bill. A separate affidavit of Baldev Singh. Executive Engineer of Pun jab Mandi Board was also produced in support of the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit of Shri R.K. Gupta, Sub-Divisional Engineer, P