Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP since 1998. It is alleged inter-alia that since the date of connection and in no occasion bill exceeds an amount of Rs.1,000/-. But on 08.09.2005 an amount of Rs.4659/- vide bill of 31368952 and then on 8.11.2005 a bill of Rs.1155/- were issued by the Op to the complainant. So, the complainant challenged said fine amount of bill. But the OP, without any revision of bill, disconnected the telephone line. Challenging said disconnection as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed the written version refuting all the allegations. It is case of the OP that there is no cause of action and regular bill has been prepared. The question of refusal of payment of bills does not arise. Also he submitted that there is regular calls in the bill and the complainant should approach said authority. It is also stated that U/S-7-B of Indian Telegraph Act-1885, the provision of Consumer Protection Act does not apply. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
.5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ In view of above discussion, a case of deficiency in service is well established against the Opposite Parties for which the Opposite Parties are liable to give compensation to the complainant. Hence, the case is allowed and ordered. The Opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to quash the alleged bills vide No.31368952 Dtd.08.09.2005 and No.32444307 Dt.08.11.2005 and issued a fresh bill taking into consideration of the highest bill during previous six months bills preceding the date of the disputed bill and also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30(thirty) days from the date of this order or else the awarded amount shall carry an interest of 18% (eighteen percent) per annum till the date of payment. Further the Opposite Parties are directed to reconnect the Telephone of the complainant and issue a fresh revise bill for payment.
Case disposed off accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations are absolutely false. He further submitted that due to non-payment of telephone bill, the telephone line has been disconnected. He further submitted that there is no cause of action to file the case U/S-7-B of Indian Telegraph Act-1885, So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is clear from the material on record that the bills have been raised for Rs.4659/- dtd.8.9.2005 and Rs.1155/- for the period 08.11.2005 respectively. The provisional bills were issued for Rs.591/-. The OP have already filed the list of calls and number of bills and accordingly the bills have been issued. Of course when the bill is not paid they have disconnected the telephone line. Thus, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
