ACCOUNTS OFFICER THRISSUR TELEPHONES vs A.A. MUHAMMADALI

THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 762/94 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur are the appellants.

THE complainant is the subscriber of Telephone No. 405 within the Mala Telephone Exchange. THE dispute is in respect of the Bill dated 1.3.94 for Rs. 1,980/-. THE S.T.D., I.S.D. facilities of the telephone were barred with effect from 14.3.92. THE complainant protested against billing. He produced previous bills Exs. Al to A17 for the period 1.11.91 to 1.9.94 to show that the average was only Rs.500/- and in no case any bill has exceeded Rs. 600/-. On 9.9.94 the 2nd appellant informed the complainant that his complaint has been rejected and the meter reading is correct. On this, he approached the District Forum claiming refund/compensation. The opposite parties is their version contended that after serving the provisional bill investigation was conducted by the department and the report shows there was no authentical error in the meter reading and there is no defect in the meter or in the allied equipments. The Mala Exchange is having inter dialing facility to Chalakudy Annamanada, Kodakara and Pariyaram. It was further contended that as there is no error at all in the reading it is not mandatory on their part to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

The District Forum on the basis of the uniform decisions on the subject held that the dispute regarding inflated bills cannot be decided by taking the average of the previous bills unless the meter and the equipments in the exchange are found faulty. The District Forum held that the present dispute cannot be decided by taking average of the previous bills. However the District Forum found that the only provisions for deciding such disputes is Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act viz. through arbitration. And hence disposing of the complaint without reference to arbitration is not really disposal according to law and is violative of the principles of natural justice. As that opportunity is denied to the petitioner there is deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,380/- to be realised from the salary of the officer who failed to refer the dispute for arbitration.

IT is aggrieved by the above order that the appeal has been filed. We went through the records and heard the arguments of the Counsel both on facts and on the legal propositions. We completely agree that the thumb-rule of the average of the previous bills cannot be the criterion for finding the correctness of the bill in dispute. In the decision reported in I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC), Accounts Officer Telecome, District Manager, Panaji, Goa v. Sheela H.N. Gannebar, the Goa State Commission ordered that the complainant will be refunded the excess amount of Telephone bills for the period 25.3.92 to 25.9.92 on the basis of the bills for the past one year preceding 26.1.92 and applying the thumb rule. The National Commission reversed the decision on a Suo motu revision holding that it is not legally permissible to quantify the bill by taking the average of the previous periods unless it is found that the meter and allied aquipments are faulty. But we disagree with the finding of the District Forum in granting compensation on the ground of deficiency of service. The District Forum held that Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act is a mandatory provision and violation of the rule amounts to deficiency in service. Section 7(b) is an enabling provision. There was no request by the complainant for referring the dispute to arbitration. In the circumstances we set aside the finding of the District Forum awarding compensation. As there is serious dispute between the parties with regard to the correctness of the disputed bills, the District Forum could have directed the opposite party to refer the disputed bills to arbitration. We therefore direct the opposite party to refer the disputed bills to arbitration. However it is only in the interest of justice that if the complainant requests for arbitration the department should resolve the dispute through that process. The appeal is allowed however without costs. Appeal allowed.