ASSTT. DIRECTOR, TELECOM vs ANIL KUMAR BANKA

THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the District Forum, Sambalpur in C.D. Case No. 143 of 1993. The complainant in the said case stated that he is a subscriber of a telephone in respect of which he requested for withdrawing the S.T.D. facilities and accordingly on 13.2.1989, the S.T.D. facilities were withdrawn. He received three local call charges dated 1.5.1991, 1.11.1992 and 1.1.1993 for Rs. 5.643/-, Rs. 33,118/- and Rs. 22,747/- respectively. He filed complaints before the Department on which he was asked to wait till the investigations are over. His further allegation is that instead of informing him about the result of investigation, his telephone was disconnected apparently for non-payment of the bills which were objected to. Since the department insisted for deposit of the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid bills before the telephone is restored, the complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the department and prayed for appropriate redressal.

THE present appellants as opposite parties filed their show cause partly admitting and partly denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. It was admitted that pursuant to the request of the complainant, orders were passed for disconnection of the S.T.D. facilities from the telephone of the complainant on 13.2.1989 and it was also reported that the said facilities have been withdrawn pursuant to the said order. But subsequently after the periodical observation and inspection of the Switch Room it was found that the S.T.D. service on the telephone of the complainant was still subsisting and that the complainant is using the S.T.D. facilities even after 13.2.1989. THE M.L.O.E. print out also confirmed the aforesaid finding. It was therefore urged that the complainant was liable to pay the aforesaid amounts as against the bills sanctioned above for non-payment of which the telephone was disconnected. THE other matters which stand mentioned in the show cause filed by the present appellants are more or less irrelevant for the present purposes. THE sum and substance of their plea is that since from the Switch Board it was found that the S.T.D. connection has not been disconnected, the complainant must be using the S.T.D. facilities for which he becomes liable to pay for the same. The District Forum after hearing both parties, held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Department. It directed the present appellants to prepare fresh bills on the basis of the preceding six months average of the first disputed bill, i.e. the bill dated 1.5.1991, on receipt of which the complainant is to pay the amount as per the bill. The department was also asked to restore the telephone connection after payment of the said bill. Hence this appeal.

The plea as taken by the present appellants in their show cause has been reiterated in the memorandum of appeal and also urged by Mr. Mohapatra during the course of hearing. His main contention is that in view of the M.L.O.E. print-out it becomes conclusive that the telephone of the complainant was enjoying the S.T.D. facilities even after the order of withdrawing the said facility was passed by the concerned officer. It has also been urged that the revision of the bills on the basis of the last six months prior to the disputed bill was without any basis and unsupportable. It has also been urged that as the S.T.D. facilities having been enjoyed by the complainant in a clandestine manner he becomes liable for the amount as per the meter reading. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has emphatically argued that after the S.T.D. facilities were withdrawn as per the request of the complainant, on 13.2.1989, as admitted by the appellants, the complainant would not be liable to pay for any reading from which it may be concluded that the telephone has been used by availing the S.T.D. facilities. It has also been argued that the use of the telephone for S.T.D. purposes might be due to deficiency or collusion of the departmental people for which the complainant is not responsible. Assuming that the print-out as recorded in the meter is correct, it may be that the telephone in question was used for S.T.D. calls. But that does not mean that the complainant was using his telephone for the said purpose. It is on his request that the S.T.D. facilities were admittedly withdrawn and therefore any clandestine use of the facilities in respect of his telephone would not make him liable for the amounts claimed in the bills.

WE may not repeat the discussions made by the District Forum, but we fully agree with the conclusion that the complainant is not liable to pay for the S.T.D. calls recorded through his telephone after the S.T.D. facilities were withdrawn. The next question that may arise for consideration of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that there was no basis for directing the department to submit revised bills on the basis of use of the telephone during the period prior to the disputed bill taking an average of six months charges. It may be so but if a telephone is used both for local calls and for S.T.D. calls, there is no provision / device to record the same separately. After the S.T.D. facilities were withdrawn, the local call facilities were still existing and therefore from the number of calls recorded by the meter it is not possible to separate one category from the other. In the aforesaid circumstances, a reasonable basis for revising the bills may be as suggested by the District Forum to take the average use of the telephone for six months prior to the disputed bill and assess the amount payable by the complainant for the disputed period. We therefore do not want to interfere with the aforesaid direction of the District Forum. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.