The main legal point established in the judgment is that the telephone bills were issued in accordance with the metered calls, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the telephone department.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an appeal against the order dated 12.12.2000 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum). Appellant/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) in his complaint before the District Forum had submitted that the telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 221399 issued on 11.8.1999, 11.10.1999, 11.12.1999, 11.4.2000 and 11.6.2000 for Rs. 1,548/-, Rs. 1,622/-, Rs. 1.161/-, Rs. 1,465/- and Rs. 1,395/- respectively were excessive. The local calls charged in the said bills were 548, 677, 343, 340 and 443 respectively. The complainant had submitted that the average of local calls for previous bills prior to 11.8.1999 came to 300 calls. The number of local calls excluding STD had not been mentioned in the bills and the details thereof had not been supplied to the complainant and there was no authentic record of local calls available with the Telephone Department. Hence the presumption of no chance of wrong metering/excess local calls could not be made out by the Telephone Department at their level. No opportunity was given to the complainant before the issuance of the bills. The complainant had made several representations to the opposite party as well as in the Lok Adalat of the Telephone Department. His representations were not considered in accordance with the law and the complainant was simply informed that his case was considered and no justification was found for rebate. No speaking orders were passed for declining the representations. Similar type of representation dated 24.10.1998 of the complainant for excessive local calls charged in telephone bill No. PA-221399 dated 1.6.1998 was considered in the Lok Adalat of Telephone Department, held on 24.10.1998 and rebate of Rs. 84/- on account of 100 local calls was granted. It is then stated in the complaint that the details of duration and CPLT on the same date on account of private calls made out of station in some urgent Court cases by the complainant had been shown higher on one side and lower in some cases as per the list of STD calls. The opposite parties have failed to pay the rebate/concession of telephone bills which was a deficiency in service.

2. In reply the respondents/opposite parties hereinafter called the opposite parties, submitted that the bills were issued as per actual use of telephone facility availed by the complainant and the bills were correct and genuine. There was no provision for giving local calls detail and only gross calls were given in the bills. No opportunity was required to be given to the complainant before the issuance of the bills. Representations of the complainant were duly considered and no case was made out for rebate. The CPLT represented number of metered calls as those were shown in complete reading of the time, duration and distance of the station to which the call was made. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was denied.

3. District Forum did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint was, thus, dismissed.

Hence this appeal.

We have heard Mr. S.D. Marwaha who is present in person and the Counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

4. The contention of the complainant that he should have been provided an opportunity before sending the telephone bills is without any force. There is no law to afford such opportunity to the complainant. The bills as asserted by the opposite parties are sent in accordance with the metered calls. No defect is pointed out by the complainant with regard to the sending of the bills in accordance with the norms provided under the rules and regulation of the Telephone Department.

5. Representations of the complainant were also duly considered by the Competent Authority and were declined, vide letter Ex. C-10 and Ex. C-16. It is state