The Telephone Department has the burden of proving that a subscriber has unauthorizedly extended telephone services in order to charge for such extension.

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by the Telephone Department, Bathinda challenging order of District Forum, Bathinda dated September 19, 1997 passed on the complaint of Kewal Krishan. A direction was given to the Telephone Department for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,200/- and Rs. 3,600/- recovered from the complainant as shifting charges/extension charges alongwith 12% p.a. interest from the date of deposit till payment. Apart from the aforesaid amount, cost and compensation of Rs. 600/- was also allowed. The Telephone Department in this appeal prays for setting aside of the impugned order.

2. Kewal Krishan was having telephone No. 242031 at Village Bareta. He was paying the bills of that telephone regularly. For September, 1995 he received a bill in which Rs. 1,200/- were charged as S/Fee which according to him was wrongly added. He approached Sh. Amar Nath, J.T.O. of Telephones to know the particulars of this demand. No convincing reply was given by opposite party No. 4, who threatened to disconnect the telephone if the amount was not paid. Thus, under protest, the complainant deposited the amount. Further in the month of November, 1995, another bill was received demanding Rs. 600/- as shifting charges. Likewise under the threat of disconnection, this amount was also paid. In January, 1996, the opposite parties demanded Rs. 2,800/- for Plan 104 rent and Rs. 800/- as 1/F fee plan 104. He again approached opposite party No. 4 who demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- for correcting the bill. On refusal of the complainant, again threat was given. Thus, District Forum was approached for refund of Rs. 1,200/- charged illegally in the bill of September 1995, refund of Rs. 3,600/- charged illegally in the bill of January, 1996 with interest @ 18% alongwith cost and compensation. The opposite parties submitted the version denying the allegations of the complainant regarding demand of illegal gratification. It was stated that the complainant had applied for 104 plan but on inspection it was found that the complainant had already shifted his extension telephone and thus for the period of unauthorised use of extension, the bills aforesaid were issued and the complainant was duty bound to pay. On the application for allowing extension, separate bill was issued as Advice Note was issued on October 18, 1995. The District Forum accepted the stand of the complainant and passed the impugned order. The stand of the Telephone Department that complainant had been illegally using the extension was not accepted.

3. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the Telephone Department has argued that cogent evidence was produced before the District Forum that the complainant had unauthorisedly himself had extended the facility of 104 plan as per plea taken up in the written statement which was supported by affidavit of S.D.O. (Telephones) and hence the order of the District Forum deserves to be set aside. There is no merit in this contention. Simple plea cannot be a substitute for proof, therefore, much importance is not being attached to the assertions made in the written statement. Only evidence of M.L. Verma, S.D.O. (Telephones) by way of affidavit was produced which is not considered sufficient evidence, much less legal evidence, to prove the allegations made in the written statement or to rebut the allegations of the complainant regarding illegal gratification alleged to have been demanded by Amar Nath, J.T.O. Apart from the affidavit of M.L. Verma, S.D.O. (Telephones), no other evidence was produced on behalf of the Telephone Department. For the sake of repetition, it may be stated that the affidavit of Amar Nath, J.T.O. was not produced against whom a specific allegation of demand of illegal gratification was made in the complaint which was supported by the affidavit of the complainant. The affidavit of M.L. Verma, S.D.O. is dated August 7,1997 but it purports to have been attested by the Oath Commissioner on August 13,1997. A