ARVIND SHARMA vs BHARTIYA DOOR SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum") in Complaint No. 74/2004 District Forum has awarded Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of complaint to the appellant-complainant.

GIST of the complaint is that the appellant-complainant was living in a house situated in Navjivan Society, Panchpedi Naka and was provided phone No. 412811. Later he shifted to another house in Kabir Nagar on 5.10.2000. He requested for shifting his phone to his new address and intimated that he had stopped use of the said phone. His phone was shifted to new location and numbered as 2327811. He was sent a bill for Rs. 1476 for his original phone No. 412811 which he paid under protest through letter dated 16.12.2000 requesting for the details of STD calls and refund of the amount of bill for the period from 5.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 but no reply was received. He duly received bills with details of STD calls for phone No. 2327811 for August-September, 2002 which he paid.

Again he shifted to another house in Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, and was allotted No. 2445554 and received a bill for the period from 13.8.2003 to 31.9.2003 for Rs. 1,622 but details for STD calls were not provided. Despite written request on 13.10.2003 again on 13.11.2003 a bill for Rs. 4,018 was sent to him without STD details which were not supplied even after written request. It was also requested that the outgoing facility be stopped from 21.11.2003 till decision of the disputed bills. Compensation of Rs. 20,000 for deficiency, harassment and inconvenience and unfair trade practice has been prayed for.

O.P.- respondent in his affidavit-cum-reply has denied all the allegations and stated that the billing was made according to use and there is no deficiency on his part. It is also stated that the bills were raised as per rules. It is also denied that the letter dated 16.12.2000 was received by the O.P.-respondent. From perusal of the record we find that a letter dated 16.12.2000 was sent to the O.P.-respondent''s Accounts Officer by Speed Post on 16.12.2000. Another letter of O.P.-respondent dated 20.11.2000 addressed to the GM phones protesting the bills and asking for STD details also is on record. Copy of still another letter sent by Registered Post to the GM on 23.12.2003 is also filed.

DISTRICT Forum vide the impugned order directed the O.P.-respondent to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 500 as cost of the complaint. Appellant-complainant has particularly assailed the advice by the DISTRICT Forum to the appellant-complainant to pay the bills regularly and apply for details, of STD calls as per rules. Appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the advice by the District Forum should have been directed towards the O.P.-respondent who has been deficient in service. It was also pointed out that the details of STD were asked for several times in writing. Learned Counsel for the respondent O.P.-respondent in reply submitted that the appellant-complainant could have obtained the details of STD bills by paying the necessary fee. It was also contented that there was no deficiency.

WE have perused the record and find that no a single letter by the appellant-complainant is replied by the O.P.-respondent. Instructions regarding dealing complaints referring to excess billing are contained in para 434 of the Posts and Telegraph Manual. Relevant portion of the manual reads as under: "(i) When a complaint regarding excess charge for local calls is received and such calls are found to exceed the higher one obtaining during the three preceding quarters by more than 100 per cent, at STD stations and more than 50 per cent at non-STD stations, unless the complainant pays the bill on his own under protest or otherwise. AOTR may defer enforcement of recovery of the amount of the disputed bill till investigation of the complaint is completed, and a decision as to whether some rebate for the excess charge is justified or not, is taken.

(ii) Action should be taken to cancel the disputed bill and split it up into two bills - one to include charges which are correctly payable by the subscriber including the local calls, local call charge being computed to be equal to the average number of calls metered during the six bi-monthly periods (one year) immediately preceding the disputed periods plus 10 per cent over the average. A second bill should be prepared for the balance and marked as ''part local call bill (disputed)''."

It is obvious that the departmental instructions regarding the inquiry in respect of protested bills have not been followed.

THEREFORE, in our opinion the O.P.-respondent was certainly deficient in service in utter disregard of the departmental instructions. THEREFORE, the impugned order is affirmed. O.P.-respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of this appeal to the appellant-complainant in addition to the amount payable under the impugned order. O.P. respondent is also directed to consider and dispose of objections regarding the disputed bills with 3 months time. We also feel that the remarks contained in the impugned order advising the appellant-complainant regarding payment of bills etc. are uncalled for. Ordered accordingly.