Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And Ors. vs Sheikh Hussain Ali

MR . Justice Ashok Bhan, President -Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh (herein referred to as the District Forum'' for short), which has been affirmed partly by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL'' for short) and others, have filed the present Revision Petition. By the impugned Orders, the Foras below directed the petitioners to reinstal the disconnected telephone of the complainant and quashed the bills dated 1.8.1997, 1.1.1997 and 1.12.1997 for the use of telephone No. 72223 got installed by the respondent/complainant from the petitioner.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are:

COMPLAINAN T ''s case is that he had a telephone connection for the past several years with subscriber No. 72223. The use of telephone was restricted to that of receiving calls only. Seldom did complainant make the calls. It was alleged that he used to make payment of the bills regularly and promptly. Usually, he used to get the telephone bill between Rs. 100 to Rs. 600. To his shock, he received a bill for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 1,55,012 in the month of August, 1997 which was questioned by him and approaching the petitioners with a request to investigate the matter and reduce the bill to a nominal amount. He received excessive bills dated 1.10.1997 for Rs. 7,737. Similarly, he received excessive bill on 1.12.1997. BSNL did not accede to his request. Without supplying him the result of the investigation, the petitioners disconnected the telephone of the complainant aggrieved against which he filed the complaint seeking reconnection of the telephone as well as revision of the bills on 6 -mont average basis. Petitioners entered appearance and filed their Written Statements. It was admitted that the respondent had a telephone connection bearing No. 72223 and, usually, he used to receive the bills between Rs. 300 to Rs. 600. That he had STD and ISD facility. The matter was thoroughly got investigated and, after investigation, it was found that the bills issued were as per meter reading. It was denied that there was any deficiency on their part and, accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed being without any merit.

DISTRICT Forum, after a detailed discussion, accepted the complaint and quashed the impugned bills dated 1.8.1997, 1.10.1997 and 1.12.1997 and directed the petitioners to issue fresh bills on the basis of average of six months period immediately preceding the impugned bills dated 1.8.1997, 1.10.1997 and 1.12.1997 and to pay Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000, respectively towards the financial loss and compensation. Rs. 2,000 were awarded by way of costs.

PETITIONER S , being aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, filed an Appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed with the modification that the direction issued by the District Forum to pay Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation was ordered to be deleted.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

IT is not disputed before us that prior to the issuance of the bill dated 1.8.1997, respondent was getting bills between Rs. 100 to Rs. 600 per month. Bill dated 1.8.1997 was for a sum of Rs. 1,55,012, bill dated 1.10.1997 was for a sum of Rs. 7,737 and bill dated 1.12.1997 was for a sum of Rs. 2,171. Subsequent to this, the bills ranged from Rs. 220 to approximately Rs. 600 per month. It would be seen that for three months, respondent received excessive bills. Petitioners in their Written Statements have no doubt stated that the matter regarding the number of calls made by the respondent was found to be in order but there is no assuring circumstance in the form of call bills or as to whether the calls made were within India or outside the country. Petitioners must be having all this in its record. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in 1997, the facility for ascertaining the telephone numbers to which the calls were made was not available. There is no averment to that effect in the Written Statement filed. Even in the Grounds of Revision Petition, it has not been so stated. There is no evidence in this regard. Submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, under the circumstances, cannot be accepted.

RESPONDENT was not given the Report submitted after the investigation of the matter. Officer, who enquired into the matter, has not been produced as a witness. Respondent has been denied the opportunity to cross -examine the person who had submitted the Report, thus, denying him of an opportunity to question the correctness or otherwise of the Report submitted. Method adopted for ascertaining as to whether the matter was faulty or not has also not been disclosed. Bill issued on 1.8.1997 of Rs. 1,55,012 is exorbitant. In the absence of any reassuring circumstance, the averment made in the Written Statements that the respondent was correctly billed, cannot be accepted especially when the amount of bills issued prior and subsequent to the bill dated 1.8.1997, did not exceed Rs. 1,000.

WE do not find any infirmity in the Orders passed by the Fora below. For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is dismissed, the parties to bear their own costs. R.P. dismissed.