ACCOUNTS OFFICER TR, KASARAGOD vs ABOOBACKER, M.P.

THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 132/1997 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragode are the appellants.

THE grievance of the complainant is that he was asked to remit amount as per Exbt. Al to A3 bills towards telephone charges. According to him there was spurt in the meter reading which is not genuine and cannot be the result of the actual user by him. Calling upon him to pay as per such a bill is deficiency of service. THE opposite party (1) filed version wherein he denied the allegations in the complaint and had also maintained an investigation was conducted and the reports of which are Exbts. Bl to B3. He also pointed out, as per Exbts. B4 to B7 the result of the investigation was intimated to the opposite party. The District Forum found that there is deficiency of service, therefore it set aside the three bills in question and the opposite parties were directed to prepare fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of the highest amount received during six months preceding the date of the first disputed bill and adding 10% to the amount so determined. It is also directed that the excess amount paid by the complainant shall be adjusted towards future bill. A compensation of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded with costs of Ps. 500/-.

Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is filed by the opposite parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellants maintains that, in context of Exbts. Bl to B3 investigation report, the complainant cannot have any grievance. Further, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that, with respect of Al and A2 bills, the complainant had instituted O.P. No. 14 / 1997 before the same Forum and had got it dismissed as he did not press the complaint. The copy of the order also was produced. It was further urged by the learned Counsel, that there was no abnormal spurt calling for any action on the part of the complainant. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents/complainant sought to maintain the order contending that, since there was spurt in the calls, it was necessary for the appellants to follow the procedure contained in circular dated 9.4.1986 with No. 4-59/85 TR. The circular enjoined, to be kept in observation, and a responsible staff has to be deputed to the subscriber''s premises to ensure that, there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts. The learned Counsel relied on the decision in I (1995) CPJ 223 (NC), wherein held that such circulars are mandatory. As regards the earlier proceeding having dismissed as it was not pressed, learned Counsel sought to overcome the said decision by contending that the same cannot have any effect on his maintaining this petition including the said claim under Exbts. Al and A2 bills also.

IT should be noted that, the copy of the order in O.P. No. 14/1997 shows that, the complaint was dismissed, as it was not pressed. IT is not even a withdrawal of the complaint. Even where the complaint is withdrawn without reserving right to bring a fresh complaint on the same cause of action the order would be a bar for the complainant to file a second complaint on the same cause of action. Here not only he did not withdraw the complaint reserving the right to bring a fresh complaint on the same cause of action, he got the complaint dismissed by not pressing it. Therefore the complainant cannot again pursue a grievance with respect of Exbt. Al and A2 bills. With respect to Exbt. A3 bill the only reason for the spurt urged by the respondent was that, the spurt occasioned on account of the marriage of the complainant''s daughter, but whereas the period covered by the said bill was from 16.12.1996 to 15.2.1997, the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was on 19.6.1995. Therefore there could not have been spurt in the calls in connection with the marriage of the complainant''s daughter. The main attempt by the respondent to say, unless there was 30-40 times increase in the calls, the circular need not be adhered to; all that has to be said is, the ground urged solemnisation of the marriage of the complainant which now is found to be untenable. Therefore the grievance against Exbt. A3 bill has to be sustained; if that is so, there is deficiency of service with respect to Exbt. A3 bill. Since it is already found that the grievance if any with respect to Exbt. Al and A2 bills do not survive, the relief must confine to Exbt. A3 bill alone. Accordingly, the relief granted by the impugned order requires modification. The reliefs granted with respect to Exbt. Al and A2 bills are set aside. In view of the above, compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to the complainant also has to be proportionately scaled down. Accordingly the compensation is fixed at Rs. 330/-. The other directions given by the District Forum are confirmed. Thus the appeal is allowed in part. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.