State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Telecom District Manager vs Mr.Nagnath Maruti Pargunde on 17 January, 2007
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.892 OF 1998 Date of filing : 14/05/1998 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.82/1995 Date of order : 17/01/2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SOLAPUR Telecom District Manager Through its Manager Telephone Bhavan Bali Ves, Solapur Appellants/Org.O.P. V/s. Mr.Nagnath Maruti Pargunde R/o.Mandar, 29, Vishram Nagar Hotgi Naka, Solapur ..Respondent/org.complainant Corum : Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Honble Judicial Member Present: Mr.R.B.Jaiswal-Advocate for the Appellants.
None for the respondent.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.82/95 dated 15/4/98, whereby Ld.District Consumer Forum, Solapur had directed the Telephone department to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.500/- and awarded interest @ 18% p.a. in case payment was not made within one month. Aggrieved thereby original O.Ps have filed this appeal.
2. Case of the complainant was that he was practicing Lawyer at Solapur. He was having previous Telephone no.299110 and after opening of new Exchange, he was allotted fresh telephone number as 601310. Since his telephone was being misused, he maintained the notebook regularly. He was having STD facility on his telephone. He made calls to other cities and he alleged that he used to maintain notes of his STD calls and the time consumed for these calls. After every 15 days, he used to confirm phone calls as per meter of the opponent. He averred in his complaint that he had brought to the notice of respective operators that his calls were excess than mentioned in the notebook kept by him. But his complaint was not taken cognizance of. He made complaint, but their reply was inform the number on which you have not made call. In this way, according to complainant he was charged excess bills and his complaint was neglected all the while. He pleaded that he contested Legislative Assembly election from Mohol Vairag Constituency in the year 1995. During this election period, he needed telephone service badly, but on many occasions he found that his telephone was not in working order. He registered complaints but to no avail. Stock reply was given every time that his telephone would be repaired tomorrow. He contacted Shri Balkishan, Telephone District Manager and told him the difficulty he was facing, but in typical manner as mentioned above, he gave the same reply. He therefore got annoyed by stock reply given by the Telephone department and filed consumer complaint after sending notice dated 18/3/95 to the Telephone department.
3. Telephone department filed written statement and pleaded that they had recorded STD calls on the Electronic machine and therefore there was no mistake in recording the STD calls made by the complainant. They admitted that for some time his telephone was not working because the old Exchange was being converted into new Electronic Exchange. So for 6-7 days there was difficulty in providing service to the consumer, but they pleaded that they had refunded the amount to the complainant during the period his telephone was not in working order. They pleaded that there was no deficiency of any kind and by money order the amount was refunded for the period during which telephone of the complainant was not in working order. Therefore Telephone department submitted that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
4. On the basis of documents and affidavits placed on record, the Ld.District Consumer Forum concluded that during the period from 6/3/95 to 18/3/95, complainants telephone was dead and from the statement of opponent that they had given refund for the period 12/3/95 to 21/3/95, it was clearly established that the phone was dead. Forum below also noted that old phone was transferred to new Exchange and therefore, for some period it was dead. Forum below observed in its order that taking this factor into account that there was no deficiency on the part of the opponent, Forum below also noted that since STD calls were being recorded on Electronic Exchange, there could not be any difference in counting numbers of STD calls and since the complainant had not provided particulars of STD calls he made, the charges levied by Telephone department for STD calls made were proper and hence there was no deficiency on the part of the opponent. However, the Ld.District Consumer Forum got annoyed by the fact that Telephone department all the while gave stock reply inform the number on which you have not made call. If you are dialing Exchange number again and again on the same day in quick succession, you are bound to get the same stock reply. So there was nothing wrong on the part of the Telephone department if they gave stock reply to such calls made by the complainant.
5. It is very shocking to note that while deciding this complaint, the Ld.President of the District Consumer Forum put his own experience in the judgement and probably his bad experience with Telephone department prompted him to deliver the judgement against the appellant herein.
When it was the consistent finding of the Forum below that there was no deficiency on the part the appellant for the period when the respondents telephone was dead, when it was finding of the Forum below that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in recording STD calls made by the respondent, when it was finding of the Forum below that for the period when the phone was dead, respondent was given back the amount they had charged during the period his phone was dead, where is the question of holding that Telephone department was guilty of deficiency in service vis-à-vis complainant. It is for these reasons we are of the view that the Ld.District Consumer Forum did not decide the complaint properly, but they got prompted to pass the order against the appellant, simply because the Ld.District Consumer Forum President had some bad experience with the Telephone department. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the judgement of the Forum below is certainly perverse and not supported by the evidence on record. In the circumstances, we are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order passed by the Forum below is quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
( S.G.Deshmukh) (P.N.Kashalkar) Judicial Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.