- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 16.11.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.
(2.) THE complainant had a telephone connection. As stated by him he had got no STD facility. His bills used to range between Rs. 200,500/ - but he has been issued bills for Rs. 5,002/ -, 4,855/ -, 10,774/ - etc. When he made the complaint, it was admitted that due to technical defects, these bills were issued but still the bills were not corrected but his telephone was disconnected and RC was issued to the Tehsil for the recovery of the amount and arrest of the complainant.
(3.) THE telephone department in its written statement admitted the telephone connection but has alleged that the telephone of the complainant was with STD facility. In Para 8 of the written statement it has been admitted that on the complaint of the complainant, there has been an order that there is technical defect and ordinary bill should be issued to him but since the complainant did not take effective action, therefore, no further action was taken by the telephone department. The disconnection of the telephone on 23.11.1998 is admitted. It is alleged in Para 10 that to ventilate his grievances, it was the duty of the complainant to have appeared before the higher authorities and to have taken effective proceedings. The issue of RC etc. is also admitted. It is alleged in Para 15 that after the report of the Sub -Divisional Officer, it was the duty of the complainant to have appeared before the Accounts Officer and General Manager to have pleaded his case but since he did not take any effective action, therefore, no order was passed by the telephone department. The complainant has very specifically written in his complaint that he has got no STD facility. The bills filed by the complainant also do not show that there was any STD facility with the complainant or not? The details of STD have not been given. The learned Forum found that the telephone department has admitted the defects, therefore, there is deficiency in service of the telephone department. We also cannot appreciate the pleadings and the case of the telephone department that after complaint, the complainant should have appeared before the higher authorities and should have taken effective action. What does this effective action mean has not been clarified anywhere. The complainant has nothing to do with the telephone authorities except being present there and when the defect was found by the telephone department out of its own, they should have definitely corrected the bills.;