AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THE appellant has been informed of the dale of hearing by Registered Post, but has not remained present. Respondent No. 1 comes from Bhuj and insisted that the matter may be heard so that he has riot to come again. THE advocate for respondent No. 2 is also present. THE mailer involves amount of Rs. 6/- only but the same has been filed for deciding the principle.
THE short question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant who is the original opponent No. 2 and who is operating the STD PCO i.e. private recognized Public Call Office can charge Rs. 2/- as service charges over and above the charges for the calls according to the meter reading. It appears that the appellant was charging Rs. 2/- as service charges from every consumer over and above the charges for the trunk call as per meter reading. This was, according to the complainant illegal and, therefore, he has filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 6/- recovered by the appellant illegally and stated that such charges cannot be taken by the private STD PCO holder. THE Disirict Forum after hearing the parties and examining the records came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot charge Rs. 2/- as service charge and passed an order to refund Rs. 6/- to the complainant. THE Complainant had also submitted that he had complained to the Telephone Department but losing was done, no action was taken and therefore he had to file this complaint. The appellant has filed a written statement in which he has indirectly admitted that he is charging Rs. 2/- as unit difference calling charges since he is getting less amount than the amount payable by him. We are of the opinion that this is merely an eye wash. It clearly proves that the appellant was charging Rs. 2/- extra in the name of-unit difference calling charges. He must have charged from numerous persons illegally and the Telephone Department also appears to have not taken serious steps against him though Ms. Tiwari, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Department states that the Department had given notice for action, but after filing the complaint.
Mr. Upadhyah states that this happens not only in Bhuj Kutch but everywhere this type of illegal practice is going on and, therefore, it is necessary that the Telephone Department publishes either the order-of this Commission or an independent news item informing the general public not to pay any charges over and above the actual call charges. Any charges taken as service charges are merely illegal. We are of the opinion that the arguments of Mr. Upadhyah shall have to be accepted. We therefore direct that the Telephone Department will publish the final order of this Commission in the newspapers at their cost or by independent news item inform the general public that services are not legal and should not be paid by the general public to the owners of private STD PCO. We expect that wide publicity will be given by the Department. ORDER We confirm the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal with cost. The cost of this appeal is quantified at Rs. 250/- which will be payable to Respondent No. 1. So far the cost of the Telephone Department is concerned, no order is passed. The parties will comply with the orders of Court within 8 weeks from today. Appeal dismissed.