Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Presiding Member &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
A.K. KALIA—Appellant
versus
GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONES, CHANDIGARH TELECOM CIRCLE—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 367 of 2003—Decided on 20.10.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. B.J. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving compensation for deficiency in service and upheld the referral of disputed bills to an arbitrator.
Headnote:
Telephone Disconnection - Consumer Complaint - Indian Telephone Rules - S.T.D. facility, Sending of inflated bills, Delay in shifting the telephone, Disconnection of telephone without notice - Rule 443
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the telephone department for excessive billing, delay in shifting the telephone, and wrongful disconnection of the telephone without notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision of S.T.D. facility was provided despite the complainant's request to hold it, the inflated bills were referred to an arbitrator, there was a delay in shifting the telephone, and the disconnection without notice was a deficiency in service.
Issues: Provision of S.T.D. facility, Sending of inflated bills, Delay in shifting the telephone, Disconnection of telephone without notice
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of receipt of the complainant's letters was false, the referral of bills to an arbitrator was fair, the delay in shifting the telephone was excessive, and the disconnection without notice was a deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court upheld the impugned order, dismissed the appeal, and found the compensation awarded to be just and fair.
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against the order dated 1.5.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-I), in Complaint Case No. 656 of 1999, Sh. A.K. Kalia v. General Manager Telephone, Chandigarh.
2. The complainant’s case is that Telephone No. 221525 was installed at his residence, House No. 182, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 17.4.1997. The first telephone bill dated 1.6.1997 was excessive and was hence paid under protest and a complaint was lodged with the O.P. Also, initially the complainant had applied for S.T.D. facility but due to the first excessive bill, he on 4.7.1997 applied to the O.P. to hold provision of S.T.D. facility in abeyance and a reminder in this context was also sent on 12.8.1997 but this notwithstanding the O.P. released S.T.D. facility on 14.8.1997. The second bill dated 1.8.1997 was also excessive and was, therefore, not paid and representation in the context was sent to the O.P. on 12.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 and it was requested that the bill be amended on actual use basis, but there was no effect. Second grouse of the complainant is that on shifting his residence from Mohali to Chandigarh on 28.10.1997, he applied for shifting the telephone to his new residence, House No. 393-B, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh. However, inspite of repeated reminders on this issue to the O.P. and the issuance of advice note on 2.2.1998 the telephone was actually shifted only on 18.4.1998 i.e. after a gap of over 6 months and the new telephone number given was 645889. For first two billing cycles he received no bills for this telephone but later he received a bill dated 1.2.1999 which was received on 7.2.1999 showing arrears of two bills. This bill was payable till 22.2.1999 but the O.P. disconnected his telephone without any verbal or written notice on 1.2.1999 itself. Alleging this as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed seeking following reliefs :
(a) Reduction of excessive bills.
(b) Payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for delay in shifting the telephone.
(c) Payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for wrongful disconnection.
(d) Payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for charging rental for 5 months for which the telephone was not shifted.
(e) Payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
(f) Payment of Rs. 100/- for writing to and visiting O.P.’s office.
3. The O.P.’s version is that the complainant applied for S.T.D. facility on 1.7.1999 and the same was provided. O.P. denied receipt of any letters from the complainant regarding non-provision of S.T.D. facility. Also the first bill was paid by the complainant without any protest. As regards bill dated 1.8.1999 it is stated that the bill was raised as per actual consumption so the bill was payable by the complainant. As regarding shifting of telephone to Chandigarh, the application is dated 28.10.1997 and order for shifting was given on 23.1.1998. However, due to non-availability of D.P. the shifting could not be done immediately. It was only on 10.4.1998 that new D.P. was opened in the area and the telephone was shifted and made operational on 18.4.1998. It is further averred that bills for the Chandigarh Telephones were sent regularly but the complainant failed to pay these and hence arrears were reflected in the subsequent bills. As per O.P. the telephone can be disconnected without any notice and the same was done under Indian Telephone Rule No. 443. Regarding excess billing it is the plea of the O.P. that since the telephone had dynamic locking facility there is no question of excessive billing.
4. Learned District Forum-I after analysis of the complaint, guided by the order of this Commission in Appeal Case No. 159 of 2002, G.M.T. v. Dr. Arun Chopra, decided on 23.9.2002 directed the Competent Authority of Telephone Department to refer the telephone bills dated 1.6.1998 and 1.8.1998 to the Arbitrator who will give a reasoned
