Gurmeet Singh Sodhi vs DISTRICT MANAGER

COMPLAINT No. 804 of 1997 and 7 other complaints numbering 657 of 1991, 782 of 1991, 116 of 1992, 336 of 1992, 1089 of 1992, 1358 of 1992 and 78 of 1993 instituted by Gurmeet Singh Sodhi resident of House No. 308, Sector 6, Panchkula regarding alleged excess billing of his telephone No. 560701 were dismissed by the District Forum -II, Chandigarh on 10.12.1998. Aggrieved against it, this appeal has been attempted by the subscriber.

BRIEFLY , the impugned order inter alia related to the bill for the period from 16.4.1992 to 15.6.1992, which was in the sum of Rs. 23,271/ -. As regards, seven other bills and the corresponding 7 complaints, the necessary particulars are given as under : S. No. Case No./R.B.T. No. Period of Bill Amount of Bill 1. 657 of 91 (255/98) 15.6.1991 to 14.8.1991 Rs. 20,121/ - 2. 782 of 91 (257/98) 15.8.1991 to 14.10.1991 Rs. 14,083/ - F 92 (256/98) 15.10.1991 to 14.12.1991 Rs. 16,314/ -

336 OF 92 (254/98) 15.12.1991 to 14.2.1992 Rs. 15,387/ -

1089 OF 92 (258/98) 16.6.1992 to 15.8.1992 Rs. 38,919/ - F 92 (259/98) 16.8.1992 to 15.10.1992 Rs. 35,258/ -

78 OF 93 (1334/98) 16.10.1992 to 15.12.1993 Rs. 23,128/ - 3. The main plea OF the appellant has been that there seemed to be some irregularities in the bills as the department is inimical towards the appellant and this has been mentioned as the reason for the bills being exaggerated. There is an affidavit OF Sh. Tarsem Paul Accounts Officer OF the Telephone Department wherein it has been specifically averred that the subscriber had STD and ISD facility from the very beginning. It was after first 4 bills that in second part OF 1992, he approached the department for Dynamic Code facility. The subscriber did not approach the respondent in August, 1991, October, 1991 and December, 1991 when various bills challenged by him were received. The complaint for the period for 15.6.1991 to 14.8.1991 in respect OF bill for Rs. 20,121/ - was instituted on 1.10.1991. Where a complaint has been instituted on 1.10.1991, the plea that the department wanted to teach him a lesson for approaching the Forum does not appear to have any force. This is a case where there was no evidence OF defective metering and the complaint rightly deserved dismissal, as observed in Punjab Ceramics Ltd. v. The Telecom District Manager, I (1994) C.P.J. 164, referred to by learned Counsel for the respondent department. In Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., II (1991) C.P.J. 286 (NC), it was observed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission that it is true that one cannot altogether rule out the possibility OF tampering or manipulation OF metering equipment and the consumer must be protected against such malpractices. At the same time, it is not open to the Consumer Fora to base a finding OF the bills having been inflated merely on the basis OF suspicion without identifying the precise defect in the mechanism. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and liability OF the appellant to pay the bills is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed. ===========================================================================