CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.425 OF 1999 Date of order : 29/07/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.263 OF 1998

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI



Genral Manager,

Sangli District Telecom

Department, Sangli. … Appellant/ Org.O.P.



V/s.



Dr.R.B.Kulkarni,

Medical Officer,

Primary Health Centre,

Bagani, Tal.Walwa, Dist.Sangli. … Respondent/Org. Complainant




Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.M.N.Mujawar for Appellant

None for Respondent.



-: ORDER :-


Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1) Respondent those send the notice under the circumstances. Heard Appellant. Appeal allowed. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 09/02/1999 passed in Consumer complaint No.263/1998 Dr.R.B.Kulkarni V/s. District Telecom Department, Sangli, by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sangli (‘Forum below’ in short).

2) Respondent/Org. Complainant complaint about excess amount bill during the period of 26/01/1997 to 25/03/1997 and 26/03/1997 to 25/05/1997. According to him that normally his energy consumption bills were in between Rs.400 to 2,000/-. He alleged that in spite of the request, the department has not furnish him the details of bills and, suddenly, they disconnected the telephone without giving any notice. Therefore, he filed the consumer compliant. Appellant/Org.O.P. submits that they verified the equipments on receiving the complaint and after verification of the instruments they found that there was no fault in the instrument and ruled out possibility of tampering too. The fact was brought to the notice of the complaint by issuing a letter and stating that the bill is not excessive. The bill received consumption/use on higher side due to excess use of STD facility. Forum below did not accept the explanation of the Department and decreed the claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Appellant/Org.Opposite Party preferred this appeal.

3) We heard Mr.M.N.Mujawar, Authorised Representative for Appellant. None present for Respondent. Perused the record.

4) In the instant case, after the complainant was received about excess bill amount, the complaint was verified by the department. It was found that there was no fault with the instrument or equipment. Possibility of tampering of the equipment also ruled out. These facts are dually established by filing affidavit of S.D.E.(group) Ashta. No evidence to contradict it. Under the circumstances, observations of Forum below that department failed to submit their evidence in this case is unfortunate. Hence, we find the impugned order/award is enormous and pass the following order :

-: O R D E R :-



1) Appeal stands allowed.

2) Impugned order dated 09/02/1999 set aside and in turn, the complaint

stands dismissed.

3) In the given circumstances no order as to costs.

4) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



A.J.