(Passed on 20.03.2013)
Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is directed against the judgement & order dtd.30.11.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal, allowing the Consumer Complaint No.CC/98/165, canceling the telephone bill dtd.01.01.1998 and 01.03.1998 and directing the appellant / o.p. to issue fresh average bill. Moreover, the o.p. is directed to pay the complainant compensation Rs.2,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment, etc.
(For the sake of brevity the appellant is referred as “the o.p.” and the respondent as “the complainant”.)
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. The complainant is a consumer of the o.p. having telephone connection bearing No.44308 with STD facility. According to the complainant he used to pay telephone bills regularly. However, the o.p. issued excessive bills. Therefore, he made complaints dtd. 07.07.1997, 29.11.1997, 13.12.1997, 17.01.1998 and 04.03.1998, calling details of STD calls. But the o.p. did not provide the details. It is alleged that on 01.01.1998 the appellant issued excessive bil of Rs.23,795/- and thereafter excessive bill dtd.01.03.1998 for Rs.12,919/-. Therefore, the complainant made Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation Rs.5,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
2. O.p. resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that the bills are issued as per the telephone calls made from the telephone of the complainant. It is denied that the bills for excessive amount were given. It is submitted that on receipt of the complaints from the complainant enquiry was made and during enquiry it was revealed that there was no any mechanical fault in the telephone instrument of the complainant and the bills were issued as per the telephone calls made from the phone of the complainant. It has denied all other averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the documents and the evidence on record, the Forum held that there was deficiency in service of the part of o.p. and further the o.p. issued excess amount bills. In keeping with this finding the Forum cancelled the telephone bills dtd.01.01.1998, 01.03.1998 and awarded compensation Rs.2,000/- as noted above.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement & order the o.p. has preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Mr Kothari, Ld. Counsel for the o.p. and Mr N
Bhishikar Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the Written Notes of Arguments submitted by both the sides, perused the copy of impugned judgement & order and copy of complaint, Written Version, etc.
6. According to the o.p. telephone bills were issued as per the telephone calls made from the telephone of the complainant and there was no fault in the telephone instrument. The o.p. has fairly conceded that the complainant has made complaints from time to time, alleging that excessive telephone bills are issued and on receipt of the complaints the o.p. has made enquiry and found that there was no defect in telephone instrument and the bills are issued as per the calls made from the complainant’s telephone.
7. However, it is submitted by Adv. Mr Bhishikar for the complainant that no details of the phone calls were supplied in spite of giving complaint to the o.p. and therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.
8. But when undisputedly, the o.p. has made enquiry into the complaints of the complainant and found that the bills were issued as per the telephone calls made from the complainant’s phone, it can not be accepted that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. It is not the contention of the complainant that no enquiry was made by the o.p. and it was not informed to him. Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant that no details of phone calls are given, etc. cannot be sustained. But it appears from the copy of the impugned judgement & order that the Forum without considering these facts, wrongly jumped to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. Such erroneous finding cannot be sustained.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the o.p. succeeds and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Impugned judgement & order dtd.30.11.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal is set aside.
iii. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint No.CC/98/165 is dismissed.
iv. No order as to cost.
v. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
