B.N. Sinha, President
1. This appeal is directed against order dated December, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 506 of 1991 in which the respondent here was the complainant and the appellant here was the Opposite Party before the District Forum.
2. The case of the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant is the owner of telephone No. 231568 and he filed a case before the District Forum complaining that the telephone bill dated 9.10.90 for Rs. 2246.00 and telephone bill dated 11.11.90 for Rs. 10,157.00 are inflated and excessive. The telephone bills from 1975 to 1990 has always been between Rs. 200.00 to 400.00. The complainant protested before the O.P. against these two bills but no rebate was given to him in respect of the bill dated 9.10.90 and rebate of 4530 calls were given to him in the telephone bill dated 11.11.90. On these grounds the complainant filed this case before the District Forum for setting aside these two bills and for directing payment of Rs. 500.00 under each of two bills on the basis of the average of the past bills.
3. On being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed written version stating inter-alia that rebate of 4530 calls has been given to the complainant in the bill dated 11.11.90 and that the telephone of the complainant has been enjoying STD facility and therefore there was every possibility of wide variation in the calling pattern for various reasons and on these grounds the claim of the complainant has been controverted by the O.P.
4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant before the District Forum stating inter-alia that the rebate in respect of 4530 calls indicates that the telephone was not working properly and that he had never booked calls for Delhi, Gaya, Chas, Bombay, Bangalore, Jhulukbari, Calcutta, Allahabad, Kanpur, Meerut, Ludhiana, Raurkela, Nepal etc. for which charges has been made in the disputed bills. The complainant had filed an affidavit in support of the statement made in his rejoinder. But no affidavit was filed by the O.P. controverting this claim of the complainant.
5. The District Forum after taking into consideration that materials brought to its notice has ordered that the complainant will pay Rs. 450.00 only under each of the two disputed bills on the basis of the average of the bills in the past and to that extent these two bills have been modified by the District Forum and the Opposite Party have been directed to send modified bills within 15 days with a direction to the complainant to make payment thereof within fifteen days from the receipt of the bills.
6. It appears that the order sheet of the District Forum that on 7.2.92 the Opposite Party was directed to explain in writing as to on what basis the rebate of 4530 calls were given by the department to the complainant. But no explanation was given by the Opposite Party. Estimating the calls on the basis of the average of the bills has been depricated by the National Commission as well as by this Commission in several cases. But in the present case taking into consideration the rebate granted to the complainant to the extent of 4530 calls it appears that the Opposite Party were satisfied that those calls had not been made by the complainant. The Opposite Party have not said in their written version that the bills sent to the complainant by the Opposite Party were correct as indicated by the meter which was checked and found to be correct after the complaint being made by the complainant to the department in respect of these two bills. This is a strong circumstance to indicate that there was some fault either in the meter or there was some other fault due to which the bills were inflated. Under the circumstances the District Forum was justified to fix the two bills on the basis of the average of the bills for the past. Thus we find no ground to interfere with the findings of the District Forum.
7. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the findings of the District Forum are hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 500.00 as cost to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed with costs.