DEVINDER GUPTA vs GENERAL MANAGER, SRINAGAR

THE complainant has filed this complaint against the non-applicants with the allegations that the telephone bearing old No. 46267/New No. 31287, is installed at his residence at Gandhinagar, Jammu. He received a bill amounting to Rs. 9,142. 00 for the period 1.1.1989 to 28.2.1990. He states that the bill received by him is much inflated. But, after representation to the Department, the bill was amended to Rs. 3,142/-. He deposited Rs. 3,142/- with the Department. Later on, on 19.3.1990, the Department without any notice disconnected his telephone due to non-payment of balance of Rs. 6,000/- against the bill in dispute. THE complainant alleges that the disconnection of the telephone without any proper notice was a clear case of high handedness on the pan of the non-applicants. He prays for the reasonable reduction of the amount of the disputed bills and further demanded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for the mental tension and lot of inconvenience because of unjust act of the Telephone Department

ON 12.4.1990, the notices alongwith the copies of the complaint were sent to the non-applicants directing them to file their version of the case within 30 days of the notices, failing which the Forum shall proceed ex parte to settle the dispute of the complainant- consumer under the provisions of the J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1987. Notice to non- applicant No. 1 was sent under registered cover. As prayed the telephone connection of telephone No. 31287, was ordered to be restored forthwith. ON the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.5.1990, on behalf of the non-applicant No. 2. Mr. T.K. Raina. an employee of the Telephone Department appeared but the non-applicant No. 1 despite service through registered notice, did not appear. So the ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. ON 6.6.1990, the non-applicant No. 2 filed his version of the case. ON 19.11.1990, the complainant filed rejoinder to the version filed by the non-applicant No. 2. During the proceedings the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, raised a plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the cases against the Telephone Department. But, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 29.6.1990, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, made an application stating that he concedes the point of jurisdiction and further urged that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear complaints against the Telephone Department. In support of the case, Mr. Subhash Gupta, the attorney and the brother of the complainant recorded his statements as the witness of the complainant. He had not examined any other witness. The non-applicant No. 2 told the Forum that he will not adduce any evidence in the case. The arguments have been heard and I have gone through the statements of the witness of the complainant and the relevant record of the file carefully.

The witness in his statement has generally supported the case filed by his brother. He stated that the complainant received the telephone bill amounting to Rs. 9,142/- for the period from 1.1.1989 to 28.2.1990. The bill was much excessive. The complainant never in the preceding period of 2 years got such an inflated bill. The complainant received only once, in the past two years, a bill amounting to Rs. 1,583/- which was the maximum one. He states that on the directions of the Department, the complainant deposited Rs. 3,142/- with the Department. But, later on, the Telephone Department again directed the complainant to deposit the balance of Rs. 6,000/- which he did not do. Meanwhile the Department gave a rebate of Rs. 2,400/- and then forced the complainant to pay the balance amount. He added that he will be quite satisfied if the amount of the bill is reduced to Rs. 1,600/-. In cross examination the witness stated that from the date the STD facilities were extended to the State, the complainant is holding the telephone with STD facility. He never received any bill more than the amount ranging between Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 1,600/- throughout. The family members of the complainant occasionally use the STD facility to meet his brother who is at Udhampur and elsewhere in the country they have no relation for whom the family could use the STD facility.

THE perusal of the complaint itself reveals that during the preceding two years'' period the complainant got telephone bills ranging between Rs. 385 and Rs. 1,583 excepting the disputed bill which was for Rs. 9,142/-. From the statement of the witness it is proved that the bill received by the complainant for Rs. 9,142/- is much excessive. Some defect in the meter, some short-circuit in relining and faulty operation of the hook switches cannot be ruled out. It is why that the Department feeling that the bill is inflated and gave the complainant a rebate of Rs. 2,400/-. But, in the opinion of the Forum, the chargeable amount is still very high. THE Forum has failed to understand that what yardstick had been used by the Department in assessing the rebate amount. In the light of the above discussion the forum holds that the disputed bill is much excessive and the same needs reasonable reduction. THE maximum bill paid by the complainant in the preceding two years was Rs. 1,583/-. Double the amount of Rs. 1,583/- will meet the ends of justice. Now the complainant has to deposit Rs. 3,166/- in all. He has already deposited Rs. 3,142/-. Now he will deposit the balance of Rs. 24 only. Much relief has already been given to the complainant by reducing the amount of the disputed bill from Rs. 9,142/- to Rs. 3,166/-. So the Forum is not in favour of awarding any compensation to the complainant though he might have suffered some sort of loss and mental agony. Ordered accordingly.