DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA vs VIJAY KUMAR BHATT

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O.P. (Telephone Department, Bettiah) is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 25.3.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 86/97 by District Forum, Bettiah, East Champaran whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to charge only a sum of Rs. 1,246/- for the bill dated 11.4.1997 and to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation and to refund back Rs. 106/- which was charged by the Telephone Department for supply of printout.

THE brief fact of the case is that he is a subscriber of Telephone Department vide telephone No. 32162. He was regularly paying the bills but he received inflated bill dated 11.4.1997 for the period 26.1.1997 to 25.3.1997 for Rs. 4,433/- only. THE complainant made a written protest against this bill and asked for printout of the period of the bill and also deposited Rs. 106/- as per demand of the Telephone Department for supply of the printout. He was supplied printout for the period 2.3.1997 to 25.3.1997 only and not prior to this period from 1.2.1997. THE rest of the amount was not refunded. THE complainant made prayer for production of the bill dated 11.4.1997 on the basis of previous bills and to refund the balance amount, which he already deposited. On notice, the appellant-O.P. appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant''s telephone is working properly with S.T.D. facility and having dynamic lock. THErefore, no third person can misuse the telephone. It is no ground for a consumer to say that the bill is inflated because earlier he used to receive bill for the lesser amount. THE bill is sent as per meter reading and it is for the consumer to use the telephone as per his choice. THEre are reasons for using more telephone of a particular period. THE printout was supplied to the complainant for the period 2.3.1997 to 25.3.1997 related with the bill dated 11.4.1997 and on this basis the bill was sent to the complainant for Rs. 4,433/-. THErefore, the printout was a proof that the bill was not inflated and the case of the complainant was without any merit. THE complainant was also informed by letter dated 1.9.1997 that the bill was sent to him as per meter reading and it was not inflated. THE complainant was charged Rs. 106/- for supply of detailed printout as per rule of the Telephone Department @ Rs. 2/- per day. However, the subscriber is entitled for the refund of Rs. 56/- only, which the Telephone Department is ready to refund. After hearing both the parties the District Forum held that complainant was receiving bill previously for the amount not more than Rs. 1,500/- but for the first time for the bill dated 11.4.1997 he received bill for Rs. 4,433/-. On the basis of previous bills it appears to be inflated and accordingly the District Forum held that the claim of the complainant is justified and the Telephone Department is entitled to refund the excess amount or to adjust in the future bill.

The main contention of the appellant before us is that impugned order is based on mere assumption and hypothesis and not on the facts on record. The Telephone Department has done its duty and has supplied the printout and the bill dated 11.4.1997 was as per meter reading. Therefore, the direction of the District Forum to charge a sum of Rs. 1,246/- only for this period is not based on the material on record.

THE appellant in support of its case has filed the photo copy of the printout of the telephone meter reading of the complainant from 2.3.1997 to 25.3.1997 to show that on different dates the charge unit was varying and on many dates it was three but on many dates it rose to 282. This shows that complainant was in habit of using telephone for longer period and his telephone calls were not consistent. THErefore, he is not supposed to receive bill on average basis of the previous bills. This chart also mentions that at what time and on what telephone the complainant has made call and it is not the case of the complainant that in what telephone number on which the telephone was made was not made by him. THErefore, the bill in dispute has been charged in accordance with the meter reading and there was no deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department in issuing this bill nor it was excessive. We have carefully perused the printout which mentions the details of the calls made by the complainant on each and every day in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that the bill was not in accordance with the printout. There is also no material on record to show that the bill in question was inflated. Admittedly, the complainant has STD facility with dynamic lock and it is no ground to say that earlier bills were of lesser amount; therefore, the disputed bill must be of lesser amount than that it was sent to them. The bill is sent as per meter reading and the Telephone Department has been able to show that it was sent as per meter reading. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the District Forum that the bill was inflated and complainant has paid excessive amount has no leg to stand and it is fit to be set aside. The Telephone Department has agreed that it shall adjust Rs. 56/-, which he has charged to supply printout in the future bills of the complainant.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside with a direction that in future bill Rs. 56/- shall be adjusted. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.