DISTRICT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs CONSUMER PROTECTION CELL

WE do not see any merit in this appeal. The case is based upon excess billing. The complainant requested the opposite parties to debar the STD facility and it was disconnected on 28.9.1993. After that, several bills were issued which were all disputed by the 2nd complainant. Therefore, split-up bills were issued and the bills were paid by the complainant. While so, all of a sudden, the opposite party namely the appellants herein sent a bill for Rs. 33,387/- as arrears due as on 28.12.1995 stating that their enquiry revealed there was no fault in the meter. The complainant contended that there could not be such excessive billing; more so, when the STD facility had been disconnected. The local calls cannot amount to so much as to claim a sum of Rs. 33,387/-. The opposite parties namely the appellants would contend that the Ooty telephone exchange originally was under "Stronger Exchange System" and it was converted into electronic system, in March, 1995. As per the old system, even if STD facility has been debarred, if the subscriber continues to try for STD calls, he will get connected to STD facility. Therefore, they would contend that the complainant must have used the facility even after debarring and hence it cannot be stated that there is any excess billing. This contention is far-fetched. Unless one knows about the working of the exchange system, it is not possible for a subscriber to resort to such practice. Therefore, once the STD facility has been disconnected, ordinarily a subscriber will only be led to believe that he has no such facility and he cannot get such facility. Therefore, unless he is put on notice or made award that if he tries continuously, he can get STD facility, he would not do the same. Further, certain procedure has been laid down under the rules. The opposite parties have not chosen to follow the said procedure. They have not also chosen to refer the bill to arbitration as required by them. There is nothing to show that they have taken the complaint seriously and made a proper inquiry into the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was rightly held by the Lower Forum that there was deficiency in service. The Lower Forum has passed an order directing that the bill dated 28.12.1995 be written off and further directing the opposite parties to pay to the 2nd complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost. With regard to compensation and cost, we are of the view that the sum awarded by the Lower Forum is on the high side. Therefore, in the circumstances, we would reduce the amount of compensation payable under the heading of mental agony to Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. To that extent, the order of the Lower Forum will stand modified.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the Lower Forum as follows : The opposite parties namely the appellants are directed to pay to the 2nd complainant a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost. The relief granted by the Lower Forum declaring and writing off the bill dated 28.12.1995 will stand untouched. IN the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost in the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.