H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Appeal No. 372/2006.

Date of Decision 8.5.2009.

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Dharamshala, Telecom Ltd.,

Kangra at Dharamshala Camp at Palampur, HP through its General Manager.,



2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Palampur through its Sub Divisional

Officer (Telecom), Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, HP.,



3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Palampur through its Junior

Officer, Telecom, Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, HP.

……..Appellants.

Versus



Lokinder Singh Jamalta S/o Shri Mohan Singh R/o Teachers’ Colony

Holta Camp, Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, HP.

…….Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Appellants. Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate vice

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General

of India.



For the Respondent. Mr. Ashish Jamalta, Advocate vice Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate.



O R D E R:







Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of this case.

2. Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Palampur on 19.6.2006. While allowing the complaint of the respondent, following directions were issued to the appellants:-

“In view of our findings on points No.1 to 5 above, the complaint is partly allowed and we order the opposite parties to modify the telephone bills No. 37036777 dated 6.12.2003 to the tune of Rs. 7688/- and 38685259 dated 3.2.2004 to the tune of Rs. 4673/-. The charges will be as per highest telephone bill issued during the six bio-monthly period (one year) immediately preceding the disputed period plus 10 percent over the highest bill. The opposite parties are directed to issue modified telephone bills to the complainant within 30 days from today and after deposit of the modified telephone bills by the complainant, the opposite parties will restore the telephone connection of the complainant forthwith, if disconnected. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost and compensation. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.”



3. Respondent being a subscriber of telephone No. 232691 at his residence is not in dispute. His grievance as projected in the complaint was, that he received two bio-monthly bills for the period 1.10.2003 to 31.1.2004 in the sum of Rs. 7688/- and Rs. 4673/- respectively. These were highly inflated per him. On his request he was provided computerized print out. On perusal of these print outs it transpired that most of the calls had been made to two numbers of Chandigarh, viz 0172-2541591, 0172-2615813. Further case of the complainant was that he had not dialled any of these numbers. Print out of local calls was not provided. Other grievance of the respondent was that the dynamic telephone locking system was also defective as it would get unlocked automatically. Stand of the appellants when put to notice was that the bills have been issued as per the use of telephone by the respondent, there was no excess billing. Section 7B of the Indian Telephone Act was also set up as a defence for dismissal of the complaint. Complaint was filed with malafide intention, and the respondent did not approach the Fora below with clean hands as he had suppressed true and material facts, that he was also having STD and FAC (FAX?) facility. Regarding non supply of local calls print out, it was pleaded that it is technically not possible after expiry of one year. Bills were justified as per use of the phone facility by the respondent. Thus the appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. It could not be disputed on behalf of the appellants, that the erstwhile Post and Telegraph Department, whose successors-in-interest they are, had issued instructions to keep a check in such like cases where there was certain spurt in the telephone bills. In such a situation such telephone number had to be first kept under observation in the exchange itself. And in case spurt continued, appellants were supposed to depute a person to the location where telephone is installed. This was with a view to ascertain whether there was any special occasion/function at the premises. No such steps were taken on behalf of the appellants regarding instructions being followed was admitted on their behalf. However learned counsel persisted with vehemence that appellants had issued the bills for the use of telephone by the respondent and nothing can be attributed to them so as to justify the unwarranted claim on the part of the respondent. This plea is being noted simply to be rejected for want of following its own instructions governing the present case which were admittedly in force as per the appellants.

5. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.



Shimla.

8th May, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

Karan* President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.