E.J. Bellie, President

1. Having lost his case in the District Forum the complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. The complainant is the owner of Telephone bearing No. 451214. He received a telephone bill dated 15.9.94 for a sum of Rs. 3,799.20. According to him he found therein that the telephone department had charged a sum of Rs. 2,550/- as installation charges. This amount he is not liable to pay to the department. Therefore, he deducted that amount and sent a cheque for Rs. 1,249.20. But the telephone department returned the cheque, and they disconnected the telephone. On these grounds he had filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to reconnect the telephone and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per day as damages till reconnection of the telephone.

3. The opposite party contended that the complainant has taken unauthorised extension of telephone, and that was detected by the Inspector who sent a report Ex. B3, and upon that the telephone department wrote Ex. B4, letter to the complainant stating that the unauthorised extension will be allowed to continue as a special case by taking into accounts as a departmental property and the retrospective rental charges and also installation charges would be collected from him. Alongwith that letter the department has sent a bill for Rs. 3,799/-. The complainant deducted from that bill a sum of Rs. 2,250/- and sent the balance amount only. Since he has not paid the full bill amount the department disconnected the phone. For these reasons the department is not guilty of deficiency in service and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum has accepted the case of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint with a costs of Rs. 500/-.

5. In the appeal there was no one to represent the appellant. We heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and we also went through the records. We find no reason whatsoever to disagree with he findings arrived at by the District Forum. The opposite party have filed a number of exhibits which clearly show that on inspection, it was found that the complainant had unauthorised extension of phone and in this regard the opposite party wrote to the complainant letters stating that the unauthorised installation, as a special case, would be considered as a departmental property but subject to the complainant paying rental charges and also installation charges. Ex. B-4 letter dated 25.4.94 makes this position very clear. But the complainant has chosen to deduct a sum of Rs. 2,550/- from that hill and sent only the balance amount. Rightly, therefore the opposite party has disconnected the

phone. Thus, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as rightly held by the District Forum. 6. Thus considering we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.