CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MTNL vs CONSUMER RIGHTS SOCIETY

THIS is a revision petition preferred by petitioner, Chief General Manager, M.T.N.L. against the order dated 6.3.1997 of the Delhi State Commission in Case No. A-170/1995 reversing the order dated 6.2.1995 passed by District Forum-I, Delhi. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 2 had a telephone installed at her premises on 23.4.1992. The telephone was however disconnected on 28.12.1992 on grounds of non-payment of the bill dated 1.10.1992 and a second bill dated 2.12.1992. The respondent went on corresponding with MTNL till 1st October, 1993, gave a legal notice on 22.2.1994, and when there was no response filed the petition before the District Forum on 24.5.1994. The respondent''s case is that MTNL did not issue the bills and that no bill was received by her. The District Forum observed that it is for the consumer to enquire as to why he did not receive the bills in question. Further it observed that though the consumer obtained duplicate bills in the middle of 1993, she did not make the payment even then, and hence rejected the petition before it. The State Commission in appeal gave credence to the version of the consumer and reversed the decision of the District Forum.

THE revision petitioner argued before us that there are important legal issues involved in this case, involving wider ramifications to the working of the MTNL. Since there is no common position on some of the facts, it is necessary to set out the versions of both the parties properly. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that, a new telephone connection was given to her on 23.4.1992. This is admitted. Since no bills were received till July, 1992, the respondent says that she visited the concerned Telephone Exchange in July, 1992 and on enquiries was told that it takes upto a year to issue telephone bills in the case of a new connection. The telephone went dead in early August, 1992. The respondent lodged 5 complaints (No. 26 of 8.8.1992, 42 of 14.8.1992, 69 of 5.9.1992, 33 of 10.9.1992 and 70 of 22.9.1992) with the concerned Telephone Exchange and also visited the Exchange, but though promises were made that the phone would soon be set right, nothing has happened. Ultimately, when neither the phone was set right nor any bills received, she visited the office of the General Manager, MTNL sometime around September, 1993 when she obtained duplicate bills. Since the duplicate bills showed that rent was regularly being charged even though the phone was dead from August, 1992 onwards, she made a written complaint to MTNL on 1.10.1993 to correct the bills deducting the rent so that she could make the payment. As there was no response, she sent a legal notice on 22.2.1994 and then filed a case before the District Forum. She further alleges that she for the first time came to know that the telephone was disconnected (on 28.12.1992) only in December, 1994 when MTNL filed their reply before the District Forum.

The facts as narrated by the revision petitioner (MTNL) is that two bills dated 1.10.1992 (the first bill) for Rs. 3,214/- and a second bill dated 1.12.1992 for Rs. 340/- were in fact issued. They deny that the telephone was non-functional from 8.8.1992. They argue that when the bills were not paid the telephone was disconnected on 28.12.1992. It is further argued that even after obtaining the duplicate bills in October, 1993, the consumer did not bother to make the payment. They argue that they have followed the procedure laid down in Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, according to which a phone may be disconnected without notice, in case of non-payment. It is argued that there is no requirement that a notice should be sent by registered post. They argue that if the consumer''s allegation that he/she has not received the bills is to be believed, there could be frivolous disputes raised by unscrupulous subscribers to avoid payment for services. It is also argued that if there is a dispute about a bill, there is a statutory arbitration provision under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is argued that if bills bearing a particular date are issued in a particular area, a presumption should be drawn in favour of MTNL that bills would have been issued to the respondent in this case. Finally they relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of H.C. Raghubir v. UOI, 48 (1992) DLT 319, in support of their arguments.

THIS matter has to be decided on the basis of peculiar facts of this case. (Unfortunately, neither the copies of the complaints lodged by the subscriber nor copies of the duplicate bills, nor the written complaint of 1.10.1993 are on record). The fact that 5 complaints have been made on 8.8.1992, 14.8.1992, 5.9.1992, 10.9.1992 and 22.9.1992 has not been challenged. There is no reason for the subcriber to make so many complaints unless the phone is dead. It is admitted that the very first bill was issued by the revision petitioner only 5 months after the installation of the phone. In the circumstances, the averment of the subscriber that she approached the Telephone Exchange enquiring about the non-receipt of bills, and that she was told that in case of new connections, it could take upto one year appears credible. It is not denied that around September, 1993 she (subscriber) herself went and procured the duplicate bills. On seeing that rent has been charged for two years, though the phone is dead within three and a half months after installation, she asked for a revision of the bill. Rule 443 quoted by the MTNL itself provides for charging rent in such cases, for such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph authority. From the conduct of the respondent it can be seen that she is not a cantankerous or frivolous person out to exploit MTNL by non-payment of bills (the amounts involved also are small). On the other hand she appears to be a person conscious of her rights as a customer to get proper service. As regards the requirement of a notice by registered post before disconnecting a phone, MTNL says that such a requirement was not there at the relevant time but was only subsequently introduced on the reverse of the telephone bills. If that is so, MTNL authorities felt that it is a salutary provision in the interest of the consumer. In the peculiar circumstances of this case i.e. a new connection not functioning for over three and a half months, and being disconnected in 6 months from installation, it deserved service of a notice. We, therefor, see no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission, which is confirmed. Revision Petition disposed of.