VIJAY KUMAR vs District Manager, Telephones

SHRI Vijay Kumar, a resident of Chandigarh instituted a complaint challenging the telephone bill for Rs. 49,469/- issued in the month of November, 1992 in respect of his telephone No. 29081 (New No. 544753) installed at his residence. On this telephone STD/ISD facility was also available. The District Forum-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissed the complaint on 30.3.1999. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

BRIEFLY the complainant holds telephone No. 29081 (New No. 544753) and it is installed at his residence. He received a bill in the month of November, 1992 for the sum of Rs. 49,469/- in respect of this telephone which the complainant felt was on the higher side. To avoid any inconvenience to the complainant, the then Forum stayed the disconnection of telephone subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- against the bill in question on 27.11.1992. Despite the amount deposited by the appellant in time, his telephone was disconnected. When the then Forum took a serious view on the conduct of the respondent department, they restored the telephone connection. The respondent while opposing the appeal contended that this telephone is having STD/ISD facility and the possibility of extensive use thereof could not be ruled out, hence the bill was correctly issued on the basis of actual usage of the phone. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also argued that the complainant has not filed any complaint regarding excess billing in the Telephone Department. The complainant has not paid the bills of 3/94, 7/94 and 9/94 in the sums of Rs. 237/-, 861/- and 2,156/- respectively and his telephone was disconnected on 15.11.1994.

A perusal of the record shows that the complaint was instituted on 30.12.1992 and the bill in dispute was issued on 17.11.1992. The complaint was filed within two months of the bill in dispute. The respondent department was also well aware of the complaint filed by the appellant when they appeared before the District Forum on 8.1.1993 through their Counsel. The record of the subscriber should not have been destroyed till the disposal of the case. Non-production of record by the respondent department goes against it.

AFTER hearing the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay only 50% i.e. Rs. 24,734.50 of the bill in dispute, in the absence of record of the respondent department. This amount shall be payable by the appellant within four months of this order. The respondent shall restore the telephone connection within 15 days. With these directions, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. Appeal partly allowed.