(Passed on 20.11.2015)
Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. Both these appeals are preferred by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) against the orders dtd.30.01.2003 & 17.10.2003 respectively, passed in consumer complaint Nos.186/2001 & 13/2003, by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur by which, both complaints have been partly allowed.
2. The common case of the complainants in both complaints is as under.
The original respective complainants who are the respondents herein had obtained land line telephone connection from the O.P. / appellant to their respective shop. They also paid the telephone bills regularly before the disputed bills were issued to them by the O.P. The O.P. / appellant issued the disputed bills to the complainant in complaint No.186/2001 on 01.01.2000, 15.01.2000, 15.02.2000 and 29.02.2000 showing the meter reading as 11225, 15918, 16216 & 16378 units respectively, though telephone line of the complainant during of first two bills was already disconnected by the O.P. when the meter reading was 11225. Moreover, the O.P. in the disputed bills also claimed that the complainant used STD facility, though there was no STD facility provided to the said complainant. So also in other complaint No. 13/2003, the disputed bills dtd.11.02.2001 for Rs.7,985/-, dtd.11.04.2001 for Rs.11,987/- and dtd.11.06.2001 for Rs.4,469/- were issued to the complainant of that case by the O.P. showing that the complaint used STD facility. The complainant in that case also alleged that there was no STD facility provided to him by the O.P. Thus, according to the case of both complainants, the disputed bills are illegal. Therefore, they filed respective consumer complaint making common prayer that aforesaid disputed bills be cancelled and direction be given to the O.P. to pay each of them compensation and cost as specified in the prayer clause of those complaints. Moreover in complaint bearing No. 13/2003 additional prayer was made by the complainant that direction be given to the O.P. to restore his telephone connection as it has been illegally disconnected for non-payment of aforesaid disputed bills.
2. The O.P. / appellant appeared in both complaints and filed reply and thereby resisted both the complaints. Issuance of disputed bills, are admitted by the O.P. In reply given to the complaint bearing No.186/2001, the O.P. submitted that the meter was referred for investigation and report was received that there is a spurt in the meter and therefore the bill dtd.11.03.2000 was reduced from Rs.6,475/- to Rs.1,640/- and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part provided to complainant. In reply to the complaint in consumer complaint No.13/2003 the O.P. submitted that there was some fault in the system and due to which STD facility was connected to telephone line of complainant and that he used STD facility for eight & half months and therefore the bills issued are correct. It, therefore, requested that both the complaints may be dismissed.
3. The Forum below heard both parties and considered evidence brought on record in both complaints. The Forum observed in order dtd.30.01.2003 passed in consumer complaint No. 186/2001 that though the telephone line connection was disconnected when meter reading was 11225 units, the meter reading was enhanced to 15918 units and therefore the complainant is entitled to rebate about 4693 units. The Forum also observed in that order that though five complaints were made by the complainant to the O.P. about the bill for Rs.6,475/- dtd.11.03.2000, no cognizance was taken by the O.P. and after receipt of notice of the complaint, the O.P. gave reply to the complainant vide letter dtd.14.06.2000 but no rebate of 4693 units was given to him and only rebate of 3750 calls has been given. Therefore, the Forum directed the O.P. in that complaint No.186/2001 vide impugned order dtd. 30.01.2003 to give rebate of 4693 units instead of 3750 units to the complainant and to pay him compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.500/-.
4. In separate impugned order dtd.17.10.2003 passed in complaint No.13/2003, the Forum observed that there is no evidence to prove that the STD facility was automatically connected to the telephone line of the said complainant and though he was aware of the same and he used that STD facility. The Forum also observed that eight telephone bills from 11.10.1999 to 11.12.2000 issued to the complainant are for Rs.110/- to 190/- only but the subsequent three disputed bills for the dates 11.22001, 11.04.2001 and 11.06.2001 which are disputed, are respectively for Rs.6,785/-, Rs.11,987/- and Rs.4,469/- and the subsequent bill dtd.11.08.2001 is for Rs.102/- only. There is no reference of use of STD calls in account statement of the complainant submitted by the O.P. and no detail information was provided by the O.P. to the complainant about the STD calls made by him. Hence, the Forum came to the conclusion that by issuing said disputed bills to the complainant, the O.P. rendered deficient service to him. The Forum, therefore, directed the O.P. in complaint No. 13/2003 to cancel the disputed bills and issue revised bills for the period of disputed bills on the basis of average of previous six months bills and on payment of those revised bills, the telephone connection of the complainant be restored. The Forum also directed the O.P. not to charge any fee from the date of disconnection of his telephone line till restoration of his telephone line and also to pay him compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
5. As observed above the original O.P. has challenged both orders passed in consumer complaint No.186/2001 and 13/2003, in these two appeals. We have heard learned advocates of both parties in both these appeals and perused copies of the records of the complaints filed by the appellant and Written Notes of Arguments filed by both parties. The learned advocates of both parties reiterated the case of respective party to whom the represent which it is reproduced above in brief. Both advocates also took us through the documents filed in appeal as were filed before the Forum.
6. According to the learned advocate of the appellant the Forum has not considered properly the evidence brought on record and erred in partly allowing the complaint.
7. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the original complainants / respondents herein supported the impugned order.
8. It is clear from the record of both complaints that the O.P. / appellant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the stand taken by them in their respective reply filed in the complaints. In the complaint bearing No.186/2001 the two bills were issued showing meter reading as 11225 and 15918 units when admittedly the telephone line was already disconnected during the period of those bills. Therefore, the Forum has rightly given the rebate of 4693 units.
- In another complaint bearing No.13/2003 there is no evidence to show that any such STD facility was connected to the telephone line of the complainant due to fault in the system and that complainant used that STD facility. Therefore, we hold that the Forum has rightly directed O.P. / appellant to cancel the disputed bills and to issue revised bills on the basis of average reading of last six months prior to issuance of the disputed bills. We also hold that rest of the direction given by the Forum are also proper and correct and needs no interference. We find no merits in both these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed.
ORDER
i. Appeal Nos.A/03/496 and A/03/1967 are hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost in both these appeals.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
