CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES vs I.S.AHLUWALIA

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 3.10.92 passed by the District Forum, Begusarai in Case No. 15 of 91 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. THE complainant happens to be a subscriber of telephone No. 2323 at Begusarai since 1978. THE STD facility was made available to his telephone in May, 1988 and thereafter till August, 1989 there was no complaint against the bills sent by the Telephone Department. But all of a sudden thereafter the bill dated 21.10.89 for Rs. 5,026/- was received by the complainant. As this bill was excessive and inflated as compared to the actual calls made, the complainant lodged complaint dated 14th November, 1989 to DET, Darbhanga with copies thereof to the SDO (T) Begusarai. But even thereafter the Bill dated 1.1.90 for Rs. 7,457/-, Bill dated 1.3.90 for Rs. 3,413.00, Bill dated 21.4.90 for Rs.3,023/-, Bill dated 11.7.90 for Rs. 8,460/-, Bill dated 28.8.90 for Rs. 5,747/-, Bill dated 30.11.90 for Rs. 2,944/- and Bill dated 31.1.90 for Rs. 6,258/- which were inflated and excessive much more than the actual calls made. Again the complainant complained in writing to the DET, Darbhanga on 20.2.90 and 6.5.91 with copies thereof to the SDO (T) Begusarai and paid off those bills to avoid disconnection. But the complainant was sure that his telephone was used by some unauthorised person either from pole or from exchange resulting in excessive billing. THE complainant also spoke to the S.D.O. Telephones, Begusarai regarding misuse of his telephone from the pole/exchange, resulting in excessive billing. But the S.D.O. showed his inability to control this pilferage under the excuse that this practice cannot be checked with the low paid Telecommunication staff. THE complainant thereafter again received excessive bills dated 30.3.91 for Rs. 8,741/-, dated 30.3.91 for Rs. 8,741/- another bill dated 30.3.91 for Rs. 11,241/- and dated 21.5.91 for Rs. 14,342/-. THE complainant did not pay these bills and therefore his telephone was disconnected. THE complainant thereafter filed case before the District Forum for following reliefs:- (a) Restoration of telephone. (b) Bills from 21.10.89 to 21.10.91 to be cancelled and fresh bills issued based on the average of bills for the period 20.1.89 to 29.8.89. (c) Interest at the Bank rate of 18% p.a. for all the excess bills paid by the complainant. (d) Compensatory amount of Rs. 20,000/- which the complainant has suffered due to mental agony due to disconnection of telephone line specially when the wife of the complainant was suffering from heart trouble and telephone was necessary for calling doctors.

On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version denying the allegations and controverting the claim of the complainant. They have averred that every subscriber has a meter and the bills were prepared according to the meter reading, there was no excess billing and that the bills sent to the complainant are correct.

The complainant examined one S.K. Mukherjee in his behalf in support of his case and N.K. Kund an employee of the Department was examined by the opposite party. But as he did not make himself available for cross-examination, his evidence was expurted by the District Forum.

THE District Forum after taking into consideration the facts of the case of the complainant, the counter version put forth by the opposite party and the affidavits came to the finding that there was misuse of the telephone of the complainant and accepted the case of the complainant that there has been wrong billing. THE District Forum has cancelled one of bill dated 30.3.91 for Rs. 11,241 /- out of the two bills dated 30.3.91, and ordered that the bills after 29th August, 89 be freshly prepared on the basis of a maximum bill for Rs. 1,426 / - during the proceeding period. He has further ordered that the excess payment paid by the complainant against the bills will be paid back to the complainant with 10% interest for the year 1991. A compensation of Rs. 5,000/- has been also awarded to the complainant for the mental anguish suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the District Forum also ordered for restoration of the telephone connection of the complainant and for the adjustment of the excess amount paid by the complainant towards the future bills. Assailing the impugned order the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum was not justified in taking over the function of estimating the exact number of calls and directing for the revision of the disputed bills on the basis of the maximum bill paid by the complainant for one billing cycle during the proceeding period. We find no force in this submission. The complainant had filed affidavit of Sri Mukherjee in support of his case who in his evidence stated the facts stated by the complainant and said that there was abrupt spurt on the amount of the disputed bills because of misuse of his telephone connection by some unauthorised person. He has further stated in his evidence that the complainant with regard thereto was made to the S.D.O. Telephones who informed that it is not possible to check this misuse of the telephone by unauthorised persons because of low paid employees of the department. These facts though said specifically by the complainant in Annexure I to the complaint petition, but they have not been controverted by the opposite party in their written version though S.D.O. Telephones, Begusarai is also one of the opposite party in the case and the appellant here. The complainant has also filed Annexures 2 to 20 in support of his case. It appears from Annexures 2, 3 and 4 that the complainant had complained in writing to the Accounts Officer, Divisional Engineer Telephones, Darbhanga regarding the disputed bills and use of his telephone line illegally by some unauthorised persons in connivance with the Telephone Department personnel . The copies of these applications were sent to the S.D.O. (T), Begusarai also. The opposite party have not denied in their written version the receipt of these complaints by them. But it appears that no action was taken by the telephone department to investigate into the complaint made by the complainant and to verify the truth of the allegations made by the complainant and to redress the grievances, made by the complainant.

IN this connection it may be relevant to mention that instruction was issued by the Telecom Board by Circular No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.86 regarding disposal of excess metering complaints. Para 4 of the said circular mentions that excess billing complaints arise in respect of the telephone having STD facility - which facility the complainant had, because of - (a) the subscriber, his family, friends and employees having used STD and not being conscious of the extent to which they have used it, or (b) a fault in the metering circuit, or some transient fault in the system, and (c) possible deliberate mischief by other subscribers in league with our staff.

The complainant in the instant case was misuse of the telephone by unauthorised person in connivance with the staff of the department. The above circular also prescribes the manner in which such complaints are to be dealt with. This circular provides that in case of sudden spurts in the calls, the telephone line has to be placed on observations and responsible staff has to be deputed to the subscriber''s premises to check up if there has been special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts and if it is found that spurt had been for reasons unknown or there is a reasonable doubt as to the possible fault on the metering circuit or the subscriber''s equipment or a reasonable doubt exists about the possibility of some mischief, suitable rebate may be granted. The counter-version of the opposite party or the evidence of Sri Kund on behalf of the opposite party does not indicates that any such investigation was made by the O.P. We fail to understand as to why the opposite party did not investigate into the matter inspite of repeated written complaints made by the complainant. Taking into consideration the sworn affidavit of Sri Mukherjee and these circumstances there appears no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant, rather the case of the complainant stands fully established. In this situation the District Forum was quite justified in directing for the revision of the disputed bills on the basis of the maximum bill for a billing cycle during proceeding period. Hence there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the District Forum.

IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum was not justified in directing the opposite party to restore the telephone connection of the complainant because no such relief can be granted under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act). Of course this argument could be available to the appellant before the amendment of the Act in 1993. But now after amendment of the Act in 1993 the different Consumer Courts can pass orders directing to do something so as to remove the defect or deficiency in service. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the National Commission in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Pirthi Singh I (1993) CPJ 220=(1994) 2 CTJ 202 (CP) (NCDRC). Hence we find no substance in this objection being taken on behalf of the appellant and the direction given by the District Forum to the opposite party to restore the telephone connection of the complainant is also hereby confirmed.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 250/- as cost to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.