DHANJIBHAI K. PATEL vs Union of India

THE appellant is the original complainant who had filed a complaint for the two excess bills received by him against the Telephones Department. In pursuance to the notice of the Court, the Accounts Officer, Telephone Revenue (I), Rajkot has filed his objections. From the objections, it appears that the opposite parties are Union of India through Accounts Officer, Telephone Revenue, Rajkot. THE complaint having been dismissed, being aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant has filed this appeal against the Union of India through Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephone, Rajkot. THE summons alongwith the appeal memo were sent to Union of India Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot, but unfortunately the Telephone Department refused to take delivery of the summons and endorsement made thereof states that since the name of the officer was not written on the envelope containing the summons and the appeal memo, the same was not accepted and returned. It is a matter of regret that when a registered envelope addressed to Union of India, Accounts Officer, Telephones, Rajkot is sent, the office is supposed to take the delivery of the registered letter because the Department is well aware that the Accounts Officer has appeared before the District Forum i.e. the cause title of the judgment and it cannot be returned on the ground that the name of the Accounts Officer is not written. It may also be remembered that the appeal is not against any particular officer, it is against Union of India and the notice shall have to be sent through Accounts Officer who deals with the revenue of the telephone. As a matter of fact, the Accounts Officer has himself filed the written objections and the cause title of the judgment shows that the Union of India through the Accounts Officer, Telephone Department is the opposite party.

IN order to give some more time, we heard the arguments of the appellant and adjourned the appeal but even till this date nobody has cared to file the appearance or has made any enquiry, though the Department was fully aware that they refused the registered envelope sent by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was printed on the envelope itself. IN the circumstances, we decide the appeal ex-parte, on merits. The appellant wanted to send written arguments which we had received. Since the matter was ex-parte, we had also called for the original papers from the District Forum and found that the Telephones Department has appeared and the Accounts Officer has filed his written objections dated 14.11.90. These objections are signed by the Accounts Officer but there is no verification. It appears that thereafter, the Accounts Officer filed an affidavit on 7.12.90 stating that the meter was found in perfect working order and, therefore, the Dy. General Manager of the opponent Department has correctly regretted any rebate payable to the complainant. He has further stated that the complaint was treated as an appeal and was placed before the General Manager to consider the rebate, which is within his discretionary power and the General Manager has allowed a rebate of 600 calls in benefit of the applicant in bill dated 11.5.90 and no rebate is considered in bill dated 11.7.90 in view of the particulars of fortnightly meter reading reproduced therein. The General Manager or the person who has checked the meter has not filed any affidavit. In the written statement the opposite party has admitted that the complainant had the telephone facility since 11.2.77 and that the periodical bills except these two bills were within Rs. 300/- whereas the disputed bills dated 11.5.90 and 11.7.90 are for Rs. 2,112/- and 1,122/- respectively. The opposite party has come to the conclusion that since the bills are high, the complainant has not made limited use. Except this bare denial and that they have checked the metering equipment, meter reading, nothing is disclosed as to what type of investigation was made by the Telephones Department or who has made the investigation. It is also not stated in the affidavit as to on what basis the General Manager has accepted the claim for 600 excess calls. From the whole, it appears to us that no details regarding the investigation have been made and the deduction of 600 calls has been given by use of discretion without giving any information or particulars which in our opinion is not a proper exercise of administrative power. In this country, it may be remembered that even the administrative power should be exercised fairly and for reasons and unless the circumstances and reasons are disclosed we have to come to the conclusion that the exercise of power is arbitrary.

It is also proved that the General Manager has accepted that the consumer was entitled to some rebate. The complainant has filed an affidavit and has in terms stated that this telephone (telephone line) has been misused by somebody which has not been explained by the opposite party. He has further stated that mis-use of the line is generally made by employees of the Telephone Department and so many complaints have been received regarding this misuse which have been printed in newspapers also, from time to time. The most important part of the thing is that the telephone of the complainant has remained dead for which he has made numerous complaints. There is a fault card also which clearly shows that several complaints have been made by the complainant. Therefore, the possibility that somebody else might have used the telephone cannot be discarded.

IT has been observed by us several times that the telephone exchange is in the exclusive control of the Telephone Department, the lines are open which can be taped and utilized by even a petty employee of the Department. When such type of allegations are made it is duty of the Telephone Department to investigate and answer and give satisfactory evidence before the Court. Merely because there is an averment that they have made an investigation and enquiry and found everything correct is not the evidence which can have any value unless the person who had made the investigation files an affidavit or comes before the Court for oral deposition. When such serious a negations a re made, the Department ought to have examined the inspector or other persons conversant who have made the enquiry, nature of the enquiry and how they have arrived at the finding. In the instant case several complaints have been filed, rebate has been given and the District Forum has been kept in dark as to how the investigation was made, how the rebate was calculated.

IT is also very strange that the Accounts Officer refused the summons of the Court only on the ground that his name is not written. This is also one of the evidences of exercise of discretion. We therefore suggest that the department should make an investigation and take proper action against the officers who ignore the summons of the Commission or District Forum in future, because in such a case the Government has to pay damages for want of proper representation. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The Telephones Department is directed to issue fresh bills basing upon the average of bills of previous six months and if the excess amount has been paid by the complainant, the same will be returned on the basis of new bills. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The opposite party shall issue fresh bills based on average as stated above and refund the excess money if found due. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.