DISTRICT ENGINEER TELECOM vs SUNIL KUMAR

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The facts leading to this petition are that the present respondent Shri Sunil Kumar was earlier having telephone Connection No. 2537. In May, 1982 he applied for disconnection of STD facility which his telephone was having. He deposited Rs. 50/- towards disconnection fee on 25th May, 1982. However, STD facility from his telephone was not barred. According to the allegation contained in the complaint filed by him sometimes he received excessive bills and then on his complaint the bill again started coming to normal for couple of months and then again the bills were excessive. In June, 1990 his telephone number was changed to 2161 from 2537 without any intimation to him. Due to sudden change in the telephone number he could not get some important calls for which he suffered financially as he is a business man and is propietor of "Swadeshi Pharmacy". According to the complainant the Department had been negligent in the rendering of service.

THE Department contested the complaint. It was admitted that the STD facility of the Complainant could not be barred till June, 1990 and when it was done the telephone number was changed from STD group to non-STD group and new non-STD number was allotted to the complainant. The District Forum came to the conclusion that from April, 1982 to 1st January, 1990 the Complainant had to pay Rs. 10,524.30 for STD and local calls and this amount has been wrongly charged by the Department as the STD facility was not disconnected for 8 years in spite of deposit of requisite fee and thus he has been harassed as he had to pay for the above calls as well as for trunk calls. The Forum, therefore, ordered the refund of the above amount of Rs. 10,526.30 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation.

FEELING aggrieved by that order the District Engineer, Telecom filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The Commission held that after the Complainant had applied for disconnection of STD facility from his telephone he was making trunk calls under the belief that his telephone had no STD facility. It was further held that the department took about 3 years to render service which could have been done immediately after the request was made and that it was common knowledge that disconnection of STD facility takes little time if the concerned telephone exchange desires to do so. It was therefore, held that there was deficiency in the rendering of service by the Telecommunication Department. It was further held that the abrupt changing of the telephone number of the complainant without any reference to him was also arbitrary on the part of the department and therefore, sufferings of the complainant on account of deficiency in the said service also could not be denied and this deficiency cannot but be said to be on account of the negligence of the Telecommunication Department as no reason was given for the abrupt change in the telephone number. Accordingly, it was held that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum could not be said to be excessive. Considering all the facts, the State Commission did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the District Forum and consequently dismissed the appeal. Not being satisfied with that order, the Department has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

IN the grounds of revision it is stated by the Department that the town of Chapra where the telephone Exchange is situated was having MAX-II Type Stringar in which there were separate racks for STD numbers and non-STD numbers till April, 1990. There was no spare line on non-STD rack available and therefore, the request of the Complainant for STD barring could not be acted upon till separate rack for non STD line was installed. The STD barring equipment started functioning only from April 1990 and the STD of the telephone in question was barred on 7th April, 1990. It was also pleaded the prior to that the Complainant had never disputed any bill and used to make payment in normal course. After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that in the present case the relief prayed for about refund of charges from April, 1982 to 1st January, 1990 cannot be granted to the Complainant. The Complainant had calculated the amount of all the bills paid by him during that period. The bills are for local calls including STD calls, if any. From the bill the STD calls cannot be separately identified It is to be noted that from the documents filed on the record it is clear that before June, 1987 the Complainant did not make any complaint about the excessive billing. That complaint was rejected by the Department in September, 1987. There after complaint for excessive billing was made in respect of the bills dated 1.4.88,15.9.88, 1.4.89,1.2.90 and 1.6.90. This shows that prior to the above dates he had no complaint about the excessive billing. There fore, it is futile to urge that the Complainant found the bills to be excessive before June, 1987.

OF course, there has been a delay in the barring of the STD facility of the Complainants telephone but the Department has given reason for the same. There is nothing on the file to show that the said ground is baseless. Accordingly we hold that the State Commission exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity while confirming the order of the District Forum whose order was not based on sound reason. Consequently, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission as well as of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. We make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.