BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED vs T R Rautkar

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 7.10.2003 in Complaint No. 402/2001, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short).

INDISPUTABLY , the complainant has a telephone connection No. 222566 at his residence in Lane No. 28, Sector -10, Bhilai. It is also not in dispute that the said telephone connection of the complainant was disconnected on 25.6.2001. The averments of the complainant were that he raised grievance regarding telephone bill of Rs. 8,700/ - relating to the period from 1.3.2001 to 30.4.2001, as also the bill for Rs. 2,407/ - relating to the period from 1.5.2001 to 30.6.2001. According to him, the said bills were excessive. It was averred by the complainant that earlier since he obtained the telephone connection in February, 2000, the highest bill received by him was of Rs. 3,130/ - only. It was further averred by the complainant that out of 60 STD calls charged in the bill, relating to the period from 1.3.2001 to 30.4.2001, 55 STD calls were never made by him. It was further averred that he had locked his STD facility in his telephone, during the subsequent period from May, 2001; yet, the bill of Rs. 2,407/ - in which many STD calls were included, was sent to him for May -June, 2001. It was further averred by the complainant that though, he protested against the said bills, to the officials of the appellant, as also sent a letter to Deputy General Manager of the appellant and ultimately served the appellant legal notice dated 8.10.2001, but he did not get any response. Hence, the complaint.

THE appellant/telephone department resisted the complaint. According to them, the bills were for the actual reading of the calls made and were correct. It was also averred that the reading of calls made was recorded by the computer, which is an automatic machine. Thus, there was no possibility of any mistakes therein. It was also averred that it was obligatory for the complainant to pay the bills and since, he did not pay the bills his telephone was disconnected.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that the bills for the period from 1.3.2001 to 31.4.2001 for Rs. 8,700/ - was excessive. It was, therefore, directed that the complainant shall be liable to pay Rs. 3,443/ - computed on the basis of highest bill received by the complainant till then. However, the District Forum thought it fit, not to reduce the bill for Rs. 2,407/ - for the period from 1.5.2001 to 30.6.2001. It was further directed by the District Forum, that the appellant/department shall pay Rs. 5,000/ - for its deficiency in service to the complainant/respondent, as well as cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. The telephone connection was also directed to be restored without realising reconnection charges from the complainant/respondent. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record perused.

IN view of the averments of the complainant, it is clear that the grievance, in substance, is regarding bill for Rs. 8,700/ - for the period from 1.3.2001 to 30.4.2001 and the bill for Rs. 2,407/ - for the period from 1.5.2001 to 30.6.2001. The complainant alleged that the said bills were excessive. It may be noticed that the complainant in the above context specifically averred that out of the 60 STD calls shown in his bill for the period from March to April, 2001, 55 calls were not made by him. He has also given the details of calls not made by him in Paras 14 and 15 of his complaint. In Para 17 of his complaint, he had specifically stated that most of the STD calls related to telephone numbers at Hyderabad, with which he had no connection and had no friends or relatives on the said telephone numbers. Similarly, he had specifically averred that STD calls were falsely recorded in his bills relating to the period from May and June 2001, and had given particulars thereof, in Para 18 of the complaint. The above averments in the complaint, as well as material placed on record shows that the complainant had not been intimated about the action taken by the appellant department regarding the complaint of the appellant regarding the excessive bills as above, in spite of his efforts and the letter written to the Deputy General Manager of the appellant/department.

THE appellant/department in its written version only cryptically and superficially averred that the billing was on the basis of computerized readings and no fault was detected on inquiry. It was also averred that complainant was intimated on telephone about the said inquiry. Obviously, such a stand of the appellant/department cannot be accepted. The complainant raised specific grievance about the false billing and also categorically disclosed the particular telephone nos. to which he did not make the calls. The appellant department has failed to place any document on record, to show as to how and what enquiry was made by the appellant/department in the said grievance of the complainant. The appellant/department was obliged to make an inquiry and to intimate the complainant about the result of inquiry in writing, which they have failed to do. As noticed earlier, there is no document nor any material has been placed on record to show the fact that an inquiry was undertaken by the appellant/department. The apathy as above of the appellant/department clearly amounts to deficiency in service. A Public Undertaking is not expected to conduct its business in the manner as above. It may also be noticed that the Telephone Rules and circulars provide for inquiry into the complaints of excess metering. A Circular No. 2 -10/82 -TR dated 29.10.1984 and other circulars quoted at page 317, of Swamys Treatise on Telephone Rules (1st Edition), clearly lays down the procedure to be followed in the case of STD complaints. Similarly, circular No. 4 -59/85 -TR, dated 9.4.1986 has also been issued for disposal of excess metering complaints and for steps for avoiding excess billing complaint which is reproduced on page 320 in the Swamys Treatise on Telephone Rules. It will be useful to reproduce Clause 6.3 which reads: ''The excess billing complaint must be acknowledged immediately on its receipt thereon. This should be done by every officer, who receives the excess billing complaint. It is possible that the subscriber may address the higher authorities than prescribed in accordance with para 6.1 above. In such cases, such authorities while acknowledging the complaint should indicate that the complaint has been forwarded to the prescribed officer in this regard and to request the subscriber to further contact him only.''

Clause 7.4 of the said circular dated 9.4.1986 mandates that: ''To give credibility to the investigations in the Department, individual typed replies should go to the subscribers, giving very briefly the investigations carried out, the results thereof and the reasons for the final decision.''

Further Clause 9 thereof reads as below: ''It is requested that immediate action be taken on the above lines. To recapitulate, proper arrangements may be enforced for - (a) taking fortnightly readings, identifying spurts and following them up; (b) identifying one or more officers, who will receive excess billing complaints from the subscribers and giving proper publicity in this regard. Such officers must be housed in readily accessible, properly furnished offices; and (c) establishing a proper procedure for handling excess billing complaints; and (d) prompt disposal with individual replies.''

IT is clear from the aforesaid circulars that guidelines for inquiry and disposal of complaints regarding excessive metering has been clearly laid down. However, the appellant department has chosen to completely ignore the said guidelines and have acted in a very casual and rather callous manner in dealing with the complaint of the respondent.

OBVIOUSLY , therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that, as there was computerized billing there was no possibility of mistake or that the inquiry and investigation of the complaint of the complainant did not reveal any fault or mistake in bills served to him, does not deserve to be accepted. In view of the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/department, compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - was awarded by the District Forum and reduction of bills for the period from March to April, 2001 cannot be said to be, in any manner, unjustified. We do not find any reason whatsoever, for interference in the impugned order.

CONSEQUENTLY , this appeal, being without any substance, is dismissed. The appellant/department shall bear its own cost and shall pay that of the complainant/respondent which is quantified at Rs. 3,000/ - (Rupees three thousand). Appeal dismissed.