(Passed on 01.04.2016)
Per Smt Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member
1. This appeal challenges the order dtd.05.09.2000 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No.78/2000 and thereby directing the O.P. appellant herein to restore the telephone connection to the complainant after receiving the amount of bills outstanding against the complainant till 11.09.1999 without demanding any reconnection charges. By the impugned order the Forum has further allowed Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- to be paid by the O.P. to the complainant towards compensation of cost and proceedings respectively.
2. Respondent Shankarrao Sontakke to be referred as complainant and appellant District Telecom Engineer, Wardha Telecom, BSNL, Wardha to be referred as Opposite Party (for short O.P.) for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his complaint are as under.
The complainant Shankarrao Sontakke is resident of Seldoh, Tah. Seloo, Dist. Wardha. He applied for telephone connection from the O.P. and deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards installation charges on 31.03.1998 as demanded by the O.P. The O.P. installed the telephone and issued the first bill to the complainant on 01.03.1999 for the period from 15.12.1998 to 15.02.1999 for an amount of Rs.1646/-. The complainant was shocked to receive such an exorbitant bill and challenged the same with the O.P. as the aforesaid bill included the installation charges of Rs.1,000/- which the complainant had already paid. It is further contended by the complainant that he received bills dtd. 01.05.1999, 01.07.1999 which repeatedly reflected outstanding bill of Rs.1,646/-. As the O.P. failed to correct the bill dtd.01.03.1999 inspite of repeated representations made by the complainant, the complainant did not pay the subsequent bills. The O.P. disconnected the telephone connection of the complainant in the month of July 1999. The O.P., however, corrected the disputed bill dtd.01.03.1999 only on o1.03.2000 and issued corrected bill of Rs.406/- to the complainant. The complainant immediately paid the said corrected bill issued to him on the same day. It is further contended by the complainant that though he had immediately paid the corrected bill, the O.P. did not restore the telephone connection and has rendered deficiency in service. The complainant received bill dtd.01.03.2000 for the period 01.01.2000 to 29.02.2000 for an amount of Rs.220/-. As the telephone connection was already disconnected, the complainant was deprived from using the telephone to contact anybody when he was ailing and hospitalised. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, he filed the consumer complaint and sought for directions to restore the telephone connection and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards damages and cost of proceedings.
4. The O.P. resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The O.P. has specifically admitted that the bill dtd. 11.03.1999 issued to the complainant was of Rs.1,646/- to be paid by 27.03.1999. As the complainant had failed to pay the said amount, the telephone connection was disconnected on 16.07.1999. The O.P. has further admitted that the aforesaid bill was corrected by them and the net amount recoverable from the complainant was Rs.406/-. The O.P. relied on Rule 481 of Indian Telegraph Rules for recovery of rental in advance from the consumer. The O.P. had further submitted that it was entitled to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.1,541/- being towards the bills dtd. 11.07.1999 to 11.05.2001, which were issued on minimum average basis inclusive of rental.
5. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that the amount claimed towards the outstanding bills was subsequent to disconnection of the telephone and such claim results into rendering of deficiency in service. The Forum has further held that the fault in non-payment of bills cannot be attributed to the complainant as the complainant has on the receipt of the disputed bill immediately approached the O.P. for correction of the same. The O.P. corrected the disputed bill only on 01.03.2000 and the same was paid by the complainant on that day itself. Thus, the Forum attributed deficiency in service on the O.P. and allowed the complaint
as aforesaid.
6. Being aggrieved by the order, the O.P. has preferred this appeal. We heard counsel for the appellant. The responded was proceeded exparte. We perused the written notes of arguments filed by the appellant. We also perused copy of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record.
7. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether the appellants have rendered deficiency in service by issuing exorbitant bill and whether they are justified in recovering the bills issued to the complainant from disconnection of telephone connection in July 1999 till 11.05.2001.
8. On perusal of the copy of the bills filed on record it reflects that the disputed bill was is dtd. 01.03.1999 for an amount of Rs.1,646/-. The said bill was corrected on 0103.2000 and the amount recoverable was shown as Rs.416/-. The only inference that can be drawn is that the bill was exorbitant and the O.P. have admitted that the amount of Rs.1,646/- which reflected on the disputed bill was not recoverable by the O.P. Hence, the correction. The disputed bill is corrected after one year which itself shows the deficiency in service of the O.P. The complainant on the other hand has paid the amount of Rs.416/- on the very same day i.e. 01.03.2000 the copy of the receipt supports the said situation. Under such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the consumer had defaulted in payment. The O.P. while relying on Rule 418 of Indian Telegraph Rules has submitted that it is entitled to claim rental charges even after disconnection till the telephone instrument is surrendered. We perused the aforesaid Rule, which reflects Payment of Rental. It does not make mention of payment of rental after disconnection till the telephone instrument is surrendered as submitted by the appellant.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the Forum has rightly allowed the recovery of amount towards the outstanding bill till 11.09.1999 as undisputedly the telephone was disconnected in July 1999. For the foregoing reasons we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
In the result we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs in this appeal.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
