Our CorrespondentLudhiana, March 30
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the telecom department to pay Rs 4,000 on account of deficiency in services to Mr Suresh Kumar Jain, a resident of the Civil Lines area. The forum further directed the department give the rent rebate to the complainant for the period during which the telephone remained disconnected i.e from May 15, 2000 to October 31, 2000.
According to the complainant, Mr Jain received a bill of Rs 2,398 on April 8, 2000, but he did not deposit the same in time. But he deposited the same along with penalty through a cheque. The complainant stated before the forum that the cheque was debited in the account of M/s Dhanpat Rai Waaiti Ram. After that he received a message on the telephone in first week of May, 2000 that the bill had not been paid and in case of non-payment of the bill, the telephone would be disconnected, the complainant added.
The complainant stated that when he approached the officials, he was told that the amount of Rs 2,468 was outstanding. Mr Jain got issued the duplicate bill payable by May 10, 2000 and he made the payment on May 9, 2000, he added. The complainant further stated that on checking of the previous bill, it was found that the bill issued on March 18, 2000 for Rs 2,468 had already been paid and in order to avoid the double payment of the bill, he asked his bank to stop the payment of the cheque issued on May 9, 2000. The complainant pleaded that this act was bona fide.
The complainant alleged that despite payment of the bill his telephone was disconnected on May 15, 2000 without any notice. It was alleged that he met the officials of the department and showed them the documentary proof of the payment, but nobody listened to him. The complainant stated that he made a written representation, but no action was taken.
The department pleaded that the complainant had not informed the department regarding the payment of the bill which was necessary as per the instructions printed on reverse of the bill. The respondent stated that the complainant made the payment second time on May 9, 2000 at its own will. The respondent further stated that when he realised his mistake, he stopped the payment and due to dishonouring of the cheque the telephone was disconnected. It was denied that a telephonic message was given to the complainant. The department maintained that there was no deficiency in services as the telephone was restored on October 18, 2000.
The forum observed that the telephone remained disconnected for quite a long period and it was not restored even when the payment was brought to the notice of the opposite party. The forum further stated that when the payment was made on April 29, 2000, the opposite party must have received confirmation regarding the same. The forum held that there was a clear deficiency in services and accordingly directed the department to pay compensation.