CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT vs MURARI LAL KHAIRATI

HEARD them and perused the record. Complainant had telephone No. 76532 at his office. This telephone bad STD facility attached to it. It was alleged by the complainant that he made application to the opposite party on 16.5.91 for disconnecting the STD facility as the complainant no longer needed this facility. This application was received by the opposite party on 21.5.91. However the STD facility was not barred by the opposite party. The complainant stated that he received telephone bills dated 1.5.91 for Rs. 2,329, and for Rs. 6023/- dated 1.7.91, for Rs. 5505/- dated 1.9.91 and for Rs. 12,352/- dated 10.12.91. The complainant stated in his comlaint that the telephone bill dated 10.12.91 was for a very heavy amount and the complainant had never received telephone bill to this extent in the past. The complaint was filed by the complainant in District Forum, Jaipur on 3.2.92 praying that the opposite party may be directed to bar the STD attached to the said telephone and further the opposite party may be directed to charge the amount of the telephone bill dated 10.12.91 on the basis of the average of telephone bills sent to him in July and Septembers 91.

THE opposite party filed a version wherein it was pleaded that the complainant had telephone from 15.3.91 and it had STD facility. Upon the application of the complainant the STD facility was barred by the opposite party on 6.12.91. As regards the telephone bills, it was stated that they were sent according to the meter reading and as per use of the telephone by the complainant. THE District Forum, Jaipur held that the opposite party cannot escape from its responsibility by merely stating that the telephone bills were sent according to the meter reading. THE District Forum noted that there was sudden rise in the amount of the telephone bill and it was the responsibility of the opposite party to test the meter and to make necessary investigation for the sudden increase in the amount of the telephone bills. THE District Forum directed the opposite parties to charge from the complainant telephone bill amounts of the bills sent on 1.7.91, 1.9.91 and 10.12.91 on the basis of average of the amount of telephone bills which had been sent to the complainant from 1.5.90 to 1.5.91 and that if complainant had already paid the amount of the telephone bills, the excess amount recovered may be adjusted in future bills. THE District Forum also awarded to the complainant Rs. 500/- as costs. It is clear that the telephone of the complainant had STD facility and it was installed at his office. The complainant''s case was that he had made application to the opposite party on 16.5.91 for barring the STD facility and he had sent reminders for this purpose on 11.9.91 and 8.10.91, but the STD facility was not barred by the opposite party. The complainant had received telephone bills dated 1.5.91,1.7.91,1.9.91 and 10.12.91 as alleged by him in para 6 of the complaint. There was no assertion by the complainant that the metering equipment was defective or there was misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Telecom Department. As a matter of fact, the complainant had not made any complaint to the opposite party stating that the telephone bills dated 1.7.91,1.9.91 and 10.12.91 sent to him were excessive and that the opposite party should investigate the matter. The complainant had at least sent 3 letters to the opposite party on 16.5.91,11.9.91 and 8.10.91. In all these 3 letters the complainant only insisted on barring the STD facility. In none of these three letters the complainant mentioned that the telephone bills sent to him were inflated or that he did not make so much calls or the metering equipment was defective or there was misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Telecom Department. In the first letter dated 16.5.91, the complainant only requested for disconnecting the STD facility. In the second letter dated 11.9.91, he mentioned despite his request the STD facility was not disconnected and for that reason he was getting very big bills. He reminded for disconnecting the STD facility. In the third letter dated 8.10.91 also the complainant stated that despite his third request the STD facility has not been disconnected. It would, therefore, appear that the main grievance of the complainant was that the STD was not being disconnected by the opposite party despite repeated requests of the complainant.

The District Forum has given no finding that the metering equipment was defective or there was any direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to show that telephone was misused by the employees of the Telecom Department. As a matter of fact, the opposite party caused delay in disconnecting the STD facility. As already stated, the complainant had made requests for barring the STD facility on 16.5.91. He has filed the complaint before the District Forum on 3.2.92. It was on 6.12.91 that the opposite party had disconnected the STD facility. Thus the STD facility was disconnected by the opposite party after 6 months of the application of the complainant. For this delay in disconnecting the STD facility, the District Forum could award a national compensation as against the opposite party for their deficiency in service in not barring the STD facility despite requests. This notional compensation can only be Rs. 500/- and not more. The telephone bills were as per use made by the complainant and there is nothing to show that the telephone bills were high due to any defect in the metering equipment or otherwise misuse of the telephone.

WE, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum, Jaipur directing charging of the telephone bills dated 1.7.91,1.9.91 and 10.12.91 on average basis. WE only direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant for undue delay caused by it of 6 months in barring the STD facility despite repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant will only get Rs. 100/- as costs instead of Rs. 500/- allowed by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum, Jaipur is accordingly modified. Order modified.