TELECOMMUNICATION vs NASIM AHSAN

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O.P. has preferred the appeal against the order dated 10.12.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 36/2001 by District Forum, Begusarai whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to provide fresh connection after restoring telephone connection No. 2748 and after issuing revised bills and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant has telephone connection Nos. 2223 and 4275, which was changed to No. 2675, and again it was changed to 2748. His allegation is that he was getting inflated and wrong bills for telephone No. 2223 with respect to bills dated 1.4.1994, 1.10.1994 and 1.4.1996 for Rs. 4,307/-. His telephone line was disconnected for non-payment on 25.9.1996 but he was getting bills regularly. About telephone No. 4275 it is alleged that this number was changed to 2748 but he was getting separate bill for both the numbers as per billa dated 1.6.1997 and 1.8.1997. He made representation and bill dated 1.6.1997 was accordingly corrected. THE complainant alleged that due to deficiency in the service of the Telephone Department, he has to pay inflated bills in order to avoid disconnection and due to disconnection he suffered huge loss in his business and accordingly he claimed Rs. 2,65,425/- against the Telephone Department. The appellant-O.P. appeared, filed written statement and also filed affidavits. Its contention is that the complaint case was time-barred as cause of action for the alleged excessive bills were for the period 1.4.1994 to 1.12.1998 but the complaint was filed in the year 2001 after two years of the last date of cause of action and no condonation petition was filed nor any order was passed by the District Forum of condoning the delay. The telephone line of the complainant was disconnected for non-payment of the bill dated 25.9.1996 and permanently the telephone was withdrawn on 29.9.1997 as per rule. With regard to excess billing, it was contended that on receipt of the complaint the department examined it and it was looked into by the department and it was corrected but the complainant was in habit of making complaints with regard to every bill and they were examined and found as per meter reading. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that there was sudden spurt of the monthly bills of the complainant which amounts to inflated bills and it was the duty of the Telephone Department to rectify the bills after inquiry but it failed to rectify the bills which amounts to deficiency in service.

The learned appellant''s lawyer submitted before us that complaint was time-barred and this point was raised before the District Forum but it has not been answered in the impugned order. It was further argued that sudden rise in the amount of the bills is not reason to come to the conclusion that bills have been issued excessively. There may be reason for sudden spurt in the bills. The complaint of the complainant was looked into and the bills were found as per meter reading. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. As such, the impugned order is bad both in law as well as in fact. The Telephone Department however agreed that it has no objection in issuing fresh bill to the complainant as per meter reading as per direction of the District Forum.

IN the fact and circumstances and after going through the impugned order and considering the submission of the appellant, we are of the view that the complaint was time-barred as the last date of cause of action as mentioned in the complaint petition was 1.12.1998 with regard to telephone number 2748. The complaint was filed in the year 2001, i.e., after more than two years. This point was raised on behalf of the Telephone Department in the written statement and also argued but it is not mentioned in the impugned order that this delay was condoned by the District Forum. Therefore, we are of the view that complaint was time-barred and on this ground alone it was fit to be set aside. From the facts of the case we are of the view that complainant has not been able to prove that he was receiving inflated bills and there was sudden rise in the amount of the bills which was not according to the actual telephone calls. The complainant was having STD facility and there may be many reasons for sudden rise in the amount of the bills. This is no reason to come to the conclusion that bills were inflated and it amounts to deficiency on the part of Telephone Department. Therefore, this part of the impugned order, i.e., award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is set aside. However, the Telephone Department is directed to issue fresh bill of the above periods to the complainant for telephone No. 2748 and after receipt of the bill the complainant shall make payment of the bill within fifteen days and if the line of the telephone has not been restored it shall be restored immediately. With the above modification and direction, this appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal disposed of.