B.S.N.L. vs Anil Kumar Verma

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 16.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the appellant was directed to issue all the disputed bill of the complainant on the basis of average of last 6 months. A cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) was also awarded to the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of telephone No. 416232. This telephone connection was in the name of his father, late Sh. Puranchand Verma, who died on 25.1.1999. He alleged that he has been paying all the bills regularly and has deposited all the required documents with the opposite party for change of the connection in his name. THE complainant completed all the formalities regarding change of name in March 1999 but the opposite party told to change the name after few months. THE telephone was transferred in the name of the complainant on 1.8.2001. THErefore, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party after the death of his father. He alleged that average bill of his telephone comes to about Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) but he received a bill for the period 16.11.2000 to 15.1.2001 amounting to Rs. 4,503/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred three). He made a complaint with the opposite party who assured that investigation shall be done after deposit of the bill. He said that he received a bill of Rs. 4,322/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred twenty two) for the period 16.1.2001 to 15.3.2001 and thereafter he is receiving the bills of excessive amounts because the complainant has not used his telephone to such an extent. He alleged that there has been some defect in the meter of the opposite party due to which he has been receiving bills of excessive amounts for which the opposite party is liable. THE complainant lodged his written complaint with the opposite party on 12.4.2001, 19.4.2001, 23.4.2001 and 25.4.2001 but the opposite party did not hear. He sent a registered notice on 3.5.2001 to the opposite party and thereafter filed a complaint. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the name of the complainant was transferred on 1.8.2001 and his bills have been issued according to meter reading and there is no deficiency in service on its part.

The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint directing the appellant to issue fresh bills on the basis of average of last 6 months. Against which order the present appeal has been allowed.

MR. Dinesh Chandra Gautam, Advocate filed Vakalatnama and took appearance on behalf of the complainant. But on the date of arguments he did not appear. Therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The Forum has got no authority to issue a direction to correct the bill on average basis. This has also been held in the ruling reported in I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), I (1996) CPJ 49(NC), II (1996) CPJ 99 (NC) and the judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 195/2003, reported in I (2004) CPJ 410, Bharat Door Sanchar Vibhag v. Janta Medical Store. In these rulings, it has been held by an application of rule of thumb, there is no authority with the District Forum to say that this bill is incorrect and that it should be the actual bill of the complainant. In view of these rulings, the complainant has got no right to file a case without proper evidence that his telephone has been misused or there is some metering defect. There is absolutely no allegation that the telephone of the complainant has been misused. Regarding meter defect there is mere allegation without any proof.

IN view of what has been said above, the appeal is fit to be allowed and the order under appeal is also fit to be quashed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 16.10.2003 passed by the learned Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is also dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.