DHANSUKHBHAI VITTHALBHAI KAPDI vs Union of India

THIS appeal arises from order dated 28.5.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad dismissing Consumer Protection Case No. 164/1999 with cost quantified at Rs. 500/-, which was filed by the complainant on following brief facts.

THE complainant is resident of Zaroli, Tal. Umergaon, District Valsad and his telephone number is 82051 which was originally in Bhilad Town Exchange. That Bhilad Town Exchange was shifted to Sarigam GIDC and the complainant continued to have his telephone operated from Sarigam GIDC Exchange. He was, however, shocked to receive bill dated 7.5.1999 for Rs. 61,757/-, being the amount of difference on account of shifting of the Exchange as aforesaid resulting into increase in distance from the place where the complainant''s residence is situated. That was a bill for difference amount of periodical rent for a period of six years from the date on which the Telephone Exchange was shifted from Bhilad to Sarigam GIDC i.e. from 1.4.1993 to 14.8.1998. Ultimately, the bill was rectified for Rs. 23,571/-. It was on the basis of distance of 6 kms. from the place where the complainant had his aforesaid telephone to Sarigam Telephone Exchange. Upon the complainant contacting the telephone office at Valsad he was given five instalments to pay the difference amount of bill. However, as complainant could not pay the telephone bill for the aforesaid difference amount, his telephone was disconnected on 1.10.1999. He, therefore, paid first instalment of Rs. 5,105/- without prejudice to his rights and contentions. His grievance was that he was not informed before shifting of the Telephone Exchange as aforesaid. Nor there was any advertisement in that regard. Further, he was not informed that he would have to pay more amount of rent/telephone charges as per the appropriate tariff. Thus, rules of natural justice were stated to have been violated by the opponent Telecom District. On account of the default on the part of the opponent Telecom District, the complainant had to face huge financial burden for paying the accumulated amount of difference of rental and other charges as stated above. He had also suffered business loss on account of disconnection of his telephone. He, therefore, filed aforesaid complaint for cancellation of bill of Rs. 23,571/-, for return of first instalment of Rs. 5,105/- with interest, for restraining the opponent Telecom District from recovering remaining four instalments, for restraining the opponent from disconnecting the telephone in question on the ground of four instalments remaining outstanding and for compensation on account of mental shock and hardship as well as expenses of treatment which the complainant had to take for high blood pressure and diabetes. THE opponent Telecom District resisted the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Forum for entertaining the complaint, that the Bhilad Exchange was required to be shifted as the lease agreement with the landlord of the premises where the Exchange was located came to an end, that as the complainant''s telephone was at a distance of more than 5 kms. from the Telephone Exchange (Sarigam), the consumers are liable to pay rental and other charges as per the tariff, that the opponent Telecom District gave five instalments to the complainant as aforesaid, that the complainant did not pay the instalments initially, that the complainant paid first instalment of Rs. 5,000/- and reconnection charges of Rs. 105/- and that the telephone was reconnected from 22.10.1999. It was the opponent''s case that there was no deficiency in service on its part and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that it could not decide the correctness of the difference amount as per the impugned bill issued by the opponent Telecom District, that tariff is fixed by the Legislature and that the complainant was liable to pay the amount and he did not pay the amount in spite of five instalments having been granted to him and that the complainant would not be entitled to any of the reliefs. The learned Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay cost of Rs. 500/- to the opponent Telecom District.

We have heard the learned Represen-tative appearing for the original complainant and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opponent Telecom District.

AFTER some amount of submissions, it clearly transpired that the ultimate corrected bill for the amount of difference issued by the opponent Telecom District was in accordance with the tariff. It also transpired that the tariff is statutorily fixed. The correctness of the said bill also did not remain under challenge. What has been submitted on behalf of the complainant is that there was no reason for the opponent Telecom District not to issue corrected bills right from the inception. It was also submitted that there was gross negligence on the part of the opponent in issuing combined bill for a period of six years. This act had serious financial implication on the complainant as he had not budgeted or made arrangement for payment of such huge bill at once or in instalments fixed by the opponent Telecom District. It has also been submitted that the complainant had no opportunity to pray for appropriate instalments which he could pay. Thus, there was, on one hand inadvertence or error on the part of the opponent Telecom District in issuing bill for the amount of difference as belatedly as after six years, on the other hand, the complainant did not have opportunity of having had his say into the matter. Even in respect of issuance of such a bill, there was violation of principles of natural justice. As against the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted on behalf of the opponent Telecom District that since the mistake was noticed, the bill was issued. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Telecom District. We are of the considered opinion that there was in fact deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Telecom District, firstly in issuing lumpsum bill for the balance amount of difference without giving opportunity to the complainant to have his say how he would meet with such lumpsum demand. In our considered opinion, issuance of such a bill without offering opportunity to the complainant also amounted to transferring the default and/or error of the concerned personnel of the opponent Telecom District to the complainant. Viewed from any angle, this was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Telecom District. As the complainant was not in a position to pay huge amount of instalment of Rs. 5,000/- he had to face disconnection and ultimately he had to rush to the learned Forum after making payment of first instalment and getting his telephone reconnected. In this view of the matter, the complainant would be entitled to appropriate instalments as per his capacity to pay the arrears. We have been told that now the arrears have remained to the extent of Rs. 18,571/- as on 12.10.1999. We suggested instalment of Rs. 1,500/- to be adjusted in every future bill. In our considered opinion the complainant being a businessman would be in a position to pay at least this much amount every two months (billing period) commencing from the date of bill which follows. In our considered opinion the complainant cannot be directed to pay cost in view of our finding as aforesaid. Insofar as rest of the claims are concerned, same cannot be allowed bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case noted by the learned Forum as well as submitted before this Commission. We, therefore, pass following order. ORDER Impugned order datee 28.5.2001 di-smissing the complaint with cost quantified at Rs. 500/- rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad in Consumer Protection Case No. 164/99 is hereby set aside. The complaint is allowed to the limited extent by issuing direction that remaining amount of arrears/difference in the sum of Rs. 18,571/- as on 12.10.1999 or any amount remaining outstanding out of the said amount, less any payments made by the complainant during the intervening period of the complaint as well as this appeal, shall be paid by the complainant by adding Rs. 1,500/- in every running bill to be issued hereafter till the difference amount is cleared. This appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.