S D O DOOR SANCHAR VIBHAG Vs. GULAM SARWAR AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Telecom Department has filed this appeal against the order dated 4.9.2000 passed in Case No.8/2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raisen (for short the District Forum ).

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent is a subscriber of telephone No.22260 who was paying regularly bi-monthly bills sent by the Telecom Department. He received a bill dated 11.3.2000 of Rs.6,464.60 paise which included an amount of Rs.5,913/-, the rental charges at the rate of Rs.200/- bi-monthly from 31.3.1995 to 29.2.2000 which the respondent did not pay and objected. On that his telephone connection was disconnected. The respondent filed a complaint challenging the bill and alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation of Rs.1 lac. The complaint was resisted. It was stated that due to mistake of the Accounts Department, the bills were sent right from 31.3.1995 whereof call charges did not include the rental. When the mistake was detected, the demand was made of Rs.5,913.30 paise. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence held that the rental for a period of 5 years could not have been charged and for the lapse on the part of the Accounts Department or employees of the Telecom Department, the respondent cannot be made to suffer, hence quashed the demand of Rs.5,913.30 paise and ordered to restore the telephone connection and to pay Rs.1,000/- for mental pain, inconvenience and costs of the proceedings.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and on perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that on his own admission of the respondent that he did not pay rental charges for the period of demand, he was liable to pay even if there was negligence, carelessness or mistake on the part of the staff of Accounts Department or of any employee of the Telecom Department. The recovery of the amount was not barred by the period of limitation which could have been recovered within a period of 30 years by instituting a suit as provided in Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 . Therefore, the order of quashment of the demand of rental for a period of 5 years cannot be sustained.