Tribunals and Commissions(1992) 11 NCDRC CK 0076

Union of India vs ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 4 November 1992 · Citation: 1993 2 CPJ 1009

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.Varma , S.P.Goyal , Vidya Sonker J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 354 words
1.

IN this appeal we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The controversy centers around one bill which is for Rs. 11,868/-. The Complainant''s case is that the bills are excessive and is liable to be slashed.

2.

THE Telephone Department contested the Complainant and submitted that under the system in vogue at moment, the registration of telephone calls is more or less automatic and there is now no scope for errors in registration of calls. On these pleadings the Forum passed the order that bill dated 1.8.90 be reduced to Rs. 2000/-. Aggrieved by the order the Telephone Department has come up in appeal before this Commission. We have heard the parties in appeal. The main contention urged by Mr. Chaudhari learned Counsel for the appellant is that since on the new system there can be no error in recording of calls and the complaint should be directed to pay the amount asked for by Telephone Department for the Complainant.

During the course of arguments it was conceded by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Department held an enquiry into the alleged unacceptable calls and found that only one call was checked up to have been made by the Complainant, and in regard to the rest the appellant was unable to come to a definite finding that they were made by the Complainant.

3.

THE position that emerged from the facts stated above that the Telephone Department, itself is at a loss to show any light on the matter. THE facts that an enquiry has been made in this matter does not support the case of the appellant. In this state of affairs if the department was really minded to challenge the bills, it should have done so by making an assertion in the written statement that the complaint by permitting others to use his telephone is responsible for inflated bill. In these circumstances the bill is liable to be slashed down. We direct that the S.T.D. facility be forth-with with-drawn from this connection, we agree with the findings recorded by the Forum. THE appeal fails and hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.