Accounts Officer vs NORTH EASTERN INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC CABLE CO.

THIS appeal is against the order of the District Forum, Kamrup, Guwahati dated 14.3.1996 regarding excess billing and disconnection of telephone for alleged non-payment of bill.To state briefly the case is that the respondent is the subscriber of Telephone No. 45622 of Guwahati since 1991 with STD facility. On 20.3.1993, the telephone became dead and he lodged verbal complaint on the same day and again on 23.3.1993 for restoration of telephone. The complainant also informed that the STD facility was in unlocked condition when the telephone went out of order. On 26.3.1993, the appellant informed the respondent-complainant warning that huge number of calls amounting to 14,678 were registered against the Telephone No. 45522 from 16.3.1993 to 31.3.1993 and asked the respondent-complainant either to control the STD or give an undertaking that he was making so many calls and there will be no problem in making payment. The respondent-complainant was, however, surprised to find that as many as 14,678 calls were registered when the telephone was in working condition for 4 days only from 16.3.1993 to 19.3.1993. The respondent, therefore, asked the appellant to furnish details of the computerized bill. The appellant, instead served him with a bill for Rs. 17,552/-. Finding that the bill was too excessive, as his earlier bill never exceeded Rs. 2,000/- on the average, the respondent filed an excessive billing complaint on 1.7.1993. The appellant, on the other hand, served a disconnection notice dated 4.8.1993 demanding payment of the bill within 15 days and thereafter disconnected the telephone. Being aggrieved, the respondent-complainant filed complaint in the District Forum praying for restoration of the telephone and payment of compensation. The appellant/opposite party in reply admitted that the telephone remained out of order from 20.3.1993 but restored on 31.3.1993 on receipt of the complaint on 26.3.1993. The appellant/opposite party also stated that the telephone was disconnected on 24.8.1993 for non-payment of outstanding bills on notice. It was further stated that there is no provision of split bill in the case of telephone connected with Electronic Exchange and that for excess billing, the complainant is to be blamed for non-user of the STD locking facility provided in the telephone.

THE District Forum after hearing both the parties decided that there was negligence and gross deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in not taking prompt action in investigating the excess billing complaint apart from setting aside the Bill dated 1.6.1993 directed the appellant/opposite party, inter alia, to submit a fresh bill and restore the telephone and ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent/complainant. THE present appeal is against the above order dated 14.3.1996. Heard the learned Advocates of both the parties. We have also gone through the records made available to us. It appears that the telephone was out of order from 20.3.1993 and this fact was brought to the notice of the appellant by way of verbal and written complaint, it is alleged that while the telephone was still not in working condition, a bill for Rs. 17,552/- was furnished to the respondent/complainant for the period from 16.3.1993 to 31.3.1993 and registered 14,678 calls even though the telephone was in working condition only for 4 days. The appellant has not been able to give satisfactory explanation of the abnormal situation even as it has been admitted that the telephone was out of order from 20.3.1993. In absence of any satisfactory explanation about the abnormal registering of 14,678 unit of calls within this specified period, we are constrained to observe that the bill was excessive. It has been stated by the appellant that interruption takes place due to various reasons such as digging of works done by the Municipality, snapping of telephone lines and cable theft. While there may be some substance on this submission, we, however, find it difficult to believe that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant in restoring the telephone even after repeated requests both verbal and written and it took 10 days to restore the telephone.

On the question of submission of excess billing amounting to Rs. 17,552/- even when the telephone was in working condition only for 4 days during the period, covered by the bill, it has been stated by the appellant that there is no provision of split bill and hence the respondent is liable to pay even for the period the telephone was out of order. We are, however, unable to agree to the arguments advanced by the appellants on this score and hence we are of the opinion that the bill was excessive considering the period during which the telephone was in working condition.

IN view of what has been discussed above, we are not in favour of interfering with the order of the District Forum dated 14.3.1996. We, however, hold that the award of compensation should be Rs. 2,500/- only instead of Rs. 5,000/- as ordered by the District Forum and the 50% of the compensation if already paid by the appellant shall be adjusted against the amount awarded by us. With the above amendment of the order dated 14.3.1996 passed by the District Forum, the appeal is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.