AJAY DUBEY vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEGRAPHS AND TELECOMMUNICATION

THIS is an appeal filed by the Complainant against the Order dated 28th July, 1992 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The present Re¬spondent Nos.1 to 4 - General Manager, Department of Telegraphs and Telecommuni¬cation, H.P. Circle, Divisional Engineer, Tele¬graph, Hamirpur, Assistant Engineer, Tele¬graphs 7 Telecommunication, Una and Junior Engineer, Telegraphs, Telephones, Una respec¬tively had been arrayed in the complaint as Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 in the same Order. The State Commission dismissed the complaint but directed that in case of reconnection of the telephone of the Complainant subject to the payment of various charges whatsoever found ultimately by the Divisional Engineer, recon¬nection charges or other ancillary charges would not be claimed from the Complainant.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that the Complainant is a subscriber of tele¬phone No. 2476 and it was installed at his resi¬dence at Una in December, 1988. Prior to 23rd September, 1989 STD facility was not available in Exchange at Una on which date Electronic Exchange System with STD facility, national and international, was introduced. The Com¬plainant''s case is that bimonthly telephone bills were not used to be sent to him. On the other hand Opposite Party No. 4 used to convey to the Complainant on telephone to deposit the de¬mand bill and the amount was to be deposited within a prescribed period failing which he was threatened with the disconnection of his telephone. The Complainant used to go to the office of the said Junior Engineer to receive a copy of the bill but no bill was given to him. Since the date of instillation of the telephone connection the Complainant has received only four demand bills regarding the telephone bills. He got those bills from the office of Junior Engineer on request. On 25th February, 1990 the Junior Engineer telephonically informed the Com¬plainant to deposit Rs. 1,700/- as telephone bill without sending the bill or details of the calls. The Complainant requested the said Junior Engineer to sent the bill but his request was not acceded to and on the other hand he was threat¬ened with the disconnection. On 26th February, 1990 the Complainant sent letter (which is at page 26 of the paper book) to Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephones at Una complaining that the Department was not sending the bills and was informed on telephone to collect the same from the office. On 5th March, 1990 the tele¬phone of the Complainant was disconnected without any prior intimation. The Complainant deposited the said amount and the telephone was restored on 13th March, 1990. The Com¬plainant visited the office of the Junior Engineer and requested for the bill and he was issued a bill for Rs. 2,228/- instead of Rs. 1,700/-On 1st July, 1990 the Complainant was again informed by the Office of the Junior Engi¬neer to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,000/- failing which the telephone will be disconnected. The Complainant did not deposit the amount and his telephone was disconnected on 4th July, 1990 without any prior notice. On 5th July, 1990 the Complainant enquired from the Assistant Engineer that why his telephone has been dis¬connected without prior notice. The Complain¬ant was asked to deposit Rs. 28,000/- and thereafter, the telephone connection would be restored. He was also informed that Rs. 20,000/- were still to be recovered from him as his actual bill was for Rs. 48,000/-. The Com¬plainant wrote letter (at page 29 of the paper book) on 6th July, 1980 to the Respondent No.1 against irregular/excess billing at Una Exchange. The Complainant narrated the difficul¬ties faced by him. However, this letter did no bear any fruit. According to the Complainant the act and conduct of the Respondents is arbitrary and whimsical in nature and against the provi¬sions of rules laid down in the Telegraphs Act. In nutshell the grievance of the Complainant was: (i) that no regular monthly bills were is¬sued by the Department; (ii) that there is excessive billing and number of local calls shown therein have shot up abruptly to excessively high figures despite its minimum use by him; (iii) that complaints filed by him were not attended to; (iv) that disconnection of telephone faci¬lity was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Telegraphs Act and Rules as also Posts and Telegraphs Manual, despite � a very limited use (local as also out going calls) of the telephone. The complainant therefore, prayed that his tele¬phone connection be restored. He also claimed Rs. 2,03,000/- as loss/damages.

THE Respondents in their counter averred that telephone connection to the Com¬plainant was given on 25th March, 1989 and not on 18th of December, 1988 as stated by the Complainant. According to them all the bills used to be regularly despatched to the Com¬plainant and Junior Engineer Telephones used to issue demand note against regular bills for making payments on the specific requests of subscriber in case of loss of a regular bill. They admitted the disconnection of the Complain¬ant''s telephone on 7th March, 1990 due to non¬payment and subsequent restoration on pay¬ment of Rs. 2,228/- inclusive of Rs. 100/- as restoration charges and Rs. 420/-as additional security. The factum of disconnection of the telephone of the Complainant for the second time for non-payment of the outstanding dues was admitted but it was pleaded that it was disconnected on 9th July, 1990 and not on 5th July, 1990 as claimed by the Complainant. According to the Respondents the Complainant had not paid his outstanding dues in spite of telephonic reminders as per the standing provisions. It was further contended that the telephone of the Complainant had been in¬stalled in a residential/non-business premises but the Complainant has been misusing the same for his business purposes. Average of the bills preceding to the period of disputed bills cannot be taken as criteria as that pertains to the period when STD, national and international dialing facility, was not introduced at Una Exchange. The disconnection of the telephone facilities of the Complainant was in pursuance of Rules 443 and 511(3) of the Posts and Tele¬graphs Manual.

THE State Commission after going through the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act, Post and Telegraphs Manuals and Swamy''s treatise on Telephone Rules (Private Publica¬tion) and the various bills issued to the Com¬plainant, gave a firm finding to the effect that the Respondents not only delayed preparation of the bills but also did not issue bimonthly bills regularly to the Complainant and this conduct of the Respondents was corroborated by the fact that the outstanding arrears of Rs. 14,664/- was not brought to the notice of the Complainant before disconnecting the telephone for the first time on March 7, 1990 or before restoring the same on 13th March, 1990. That was the amount of bill dated 21st January, 1990 which included Rs. 280/- as rental charges for the period 1st December, 1989 to 31st March, 1990 and local/ trunk call charges from 6.8.1989 to 5.1.1990 and on the other hand the telephone was restored on payment of the three bills dated 21st May, 1989 for Rs. 38/- (trunk call charges) 21.7.1989 for Rs. 247/- (trunk call charges) and 21st Sep¬tember, 1989 for Rs. 1,423/- (which included Rs. 140/-as rent from 1.10.1989 to 30.11.1989 and trunk call charges amounting to Rs. 1,175/-from 6th July, 1989 to 5th August, 1989 and Rs. 108/- as local call charges). Thereafter the bill dated 21st January, 1990 was issued for Rs. 14,664/- which included rental charges from 1st December, 1989 to 31st March, 1990 local charges Rs. 13,693/- and trunk call charges Rs. 691/- both for the period 6.8.89 to 5th January, 1990. The next bill issued was 16th July, 1990 for Rs. 296/-. It was for rental charges only from 25th March, 1989 to 30th September, 1989 after adjustment of initial charges. Next bill is dated 21st July, 1990 and it was for Rs. 26,840/- which included Rs. 450/- as rental charges from 1st April, 1990 to 30th September, 1990, trunk call and local call charges from 6th January, 1990 to 5th May, 1990. Another bill was issued on 25th July, 1990 for Rs. 12,830/- which was local call charges from 6.5.1990 to 5.7.1990. The State Commission remarked that had the bill dated 21st January, 1990 been sent to the subscriber or had its outstanding amount been in the knowl¬edge of the Respondent they would not have al¬lowed the restoration of the telephone on 13th March, 1990 without payment of the entire outstanding amount. Accordingly the State Commission remarked that the bill dated 21st January, 1990 was not actually sent to the Com¬plainant. The State Commission held that the disconnection of the telephone of the Com¬plainant on 9th July, 1990 reflects irrespon¬sible behaviour of the Respondents in making demand of the outstanding arrears of the consolidated last four bills which were for the amount of Rs. 14,664/-, Rs. 296/-, Rs. 26,840/-and Rs. 12,813/- while they intimated the Complainant that his telephone would be dis¬connected for non-payment of the arrears. How¬ever, the State Commission further remarked that it also showed cleverness on the part of the Complainant that he did not ask for the arrears to be paid in respect of his telephone of the 5th September, 1989. The State Commission fur¬ther held that the arrears were not brought to the notice of the Complainant not any notice was given to him for payment of the outstand¬ing arrears before his telephone was disconnected on 9th July, 1990. However, the State Commission remarked that had the Complain¬ant been informed of the outstanding arrears even on 13th March, 1990 when his telephone was restored", he would not have allowed the arrears to be accumulated to the extent of Rs. 48,000/-. The State Commission also held that the Complainant was equally responsible for letting his telephone bills accumulate to the tune of Rs. 48,000/- and thus both the parties were guilty of contributory negligence. It was further remarked that though the telephone was installed for non-business purposes but the same was being used for business purposes and therefore the Complainant was not entitled to any relief on account of the loss/ damages suffered by him except giving the direction for reconnection of the telephone of the complainant subject to payment of arrears whatsoever which may be found ultimately by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs concerned and that the Respondents would not charge reconnection charges or other ancillary charges from the Complainant. The complaint was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant filed this appeal. After hearing the parties we are of opinion that the Complainant in the present case is definitely entitled to some relief. As held by the State Commission the bimonthly bills were neither prepared nor issued to the Com¬plainant. Therefore, the Complainant was not in the know of the amount payable by him. The disconnection of his telephone in March and July for non-payment of bills cannot be held to be justified.

AS is clear from the Telegraphs Act, 1885 and Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951 and the Circular No. 4/59/85-TR dated 9th April, 1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommu¬nications exhaustively deal that how the bills are to be prepared and in what manner the complaints filed by the subscriber about the excessive bills have to be dealt with. In the present case no action was taken on the com¬plaint made by the complainant on his com¬plaint made on 26th February, 1990. On the other hand his telephone was disconnected on 7th March, 1990. Similarly, no action was taken to the complaint made by the complainant vide his letter dated 6th July, 1990 addressed to the General Manager, Department of Telecommu¬nication.

THE above rules and the circular also lay down that if there is abnormal use of the telephone, the Department is to serve a fort¬nights notice to the subscriber cautioning him about the abnormal use of the telephone. In the present case there was no evidence that such notice was served upon the Complainant. Had it been done, the Complainant would have either minimised the use of telephone or would have asked for barring the STD facility. This is a mandatory duty of the Department concerned. Even the State Commission has remarked that had the Complainant been informed of his out¬standing arrears, even on 13th March, 1990 when this telephone was restored he would not have allowed the arrears to be accumulated to the extent of Rs. 48,000/-. The State Commission has remarked that the Complainant has been clever and has allowed the arrears to mount. We have not been able to appreciate this remark of the State Com¬mission. The Complainant has been writing letters to the different officers of the Department but he was not getting any reply not any action was taken on those letters. It is not the duty of the subscriber to approach the Exchange to find out the amount of his bill in case the bill is not sent to him.

THE State Commission has also held that the Complainant was using his telephone for business purposes though it was installed for non-business purposes. It is not disputed that the telephone was installed at the residence of the Complainant. The Complainant has stated in the memorandum of appeal that he used to receive calls from his customers at his residence and on account of disconnection he could not receive them.

WE have gone through the Order of the State Commission. In view of the findings arrived at by the State Commission which could not be challenged by the Respondents, we think that in the present case the Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,500/- for damages/loss and mental suffering etc. The complainant is also allowed Rs. 1,000/-as cost of the present proceedings.