AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 21.2.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore in Complaint No. 373/1990 on its file.
IT arises in this way: - The respondent herein is a subscriber of Telephone bearing No. 268608. For the period from 25.6.1981 to 25.8.1989, a bill was issued on 11.8.1989 for a sum of Rs. 14,700/- for the period from 25.8.1989 to 25.10.1989, a bill was issued on 11.11.1989 for Rs. 19,188/- by the appellant. The respondent disputed the correctness of the bills by filing a complaint before the District Forum. The appellant reduced the number of calls in respect of those bills by 4100 and 7380 calls. The appellant has issued provisional bills for Rs. 2,620/- and Rs. 2,575/- and the respondent paid those amounts. On the said material, the District Forum quashed the said two bills and directed the appellant not to collect any more amount in respect of those two bills. Hence, this appeal by the General Manager of the Bangalore Telecom District. The Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that as the respondent has not adduced any evidence, the District Forum ought to have directed the respondent to pay the amount of the bills issued after the reduction of the calls by it and ought not to have quashed those bills.
When the appellant reduced the number of calls as noted in the said bill by 4100 and 7380 calls, it follows that the appellant indirectly admitted that the metering equipment was faulty. When it is admitted that the metering equipment is faulty, there was no necessity for the complainant to adduce evidence. The Learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to explain on what basis the appellant gave rebate in the number of calls in respect of those two bills. When the metering equipment is itself faulty, it follows that there was no rational basis on which the bills could be issued to the respondent. Under the circumstances, the District Forum could have reduced the amount of the provisional bill to the average of three previous bills. The respondent has not preferred any appeal. The average of three prior bills would be Rs. 1,955/-. As he has paid the amount of the provisional bills, which is more than that amount, the order passed by the District Forum is proper and we see no reason to interfere with the same.
IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.