AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is an appeal against the order dated 1.9.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the District Forum).
THE complaint was filed by the respondent-complainant Shri Ved Prakash pleading that he was a consumer with the appellant-O.P. (hereinafter called the O.P.) having telephone connection No. 235497. It was pleaded that the O.P. had sent an illegal, inflated and exaggerated bill dated 18.7.2002 for Rs. 3,639/-. Earlier the bill sent to the complainant was on a very lower side. It was pleaded that the complainant had approached a senior officer of the O.P. to correct the bill but they did not take any action on his complaint. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for quashing the illegal demand. The O.P. in its reply pleaded that the bill in dispute was perfectly legal and valid and was strictly in accordance with the meter reading. It was then pleaded that there was no illegality in the bill and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The complaint was allowed by the District Forum by holding that the disputed bill Ex. C-3, from 1.5.2002 to 30.6.2002 for 2842 calls, on the face of it, was excessive and exaggerated. According to the District Forum, the meter had shown a sudden spurt in the months of May and June and it had shown the consumption of 2842 call units and as per law laid down by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an authoritative pronouncement reported as T.D.M. v. Kamal Jeet Kaur, CTJ 1977, O.P. was required to place the telephone on observation which was not done by the O.P.
WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, O.P., in the circumstances stated above in the order of the District Forum, was required to place the telephone on observation and to take further immediate steps to notice the sput. O.P. was required to depute some responsible official to the premises of the subscriber to know the reasons of the spurt. In the instant case, admittedly O.P. did not place the telephone on observation. Even the fortnightly reading of the meter was not taken. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.