DISTRICT MANAGER, INDORE TELEPHONES vs KAILASHCHANDRA AGRAWAL

THIS Revision Petition is against the order dated 25th June, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal by which it upheld the order of the District Forum, Indore and dismissed the appeal filed by the District Manager, Indore Telephones, Indore District. There is no controversy between the parties on facts. It is an admitted case that from 1st March, 1991, the capacity of telephone exchange at Indore was increased to more than 30,000 lines though the number of actual working lines on the relevant date was less than 30,000. Prior to 1st March, 1991 the Complainant, Shri Kailashchandra Agrawal, who is the respondent herein, and who is a telephone subscriber, Indore, was charged bi-monthly rental at the rate o£Rs. 200/- per month. With effect from 1st April, 1990 the Tariff of bi-monthly rental was revised in respect of telephone exchange systems. In telephone exchanges having 30,000 lines and above the bimonthly rental per telephone was fixed at Rs. 250/-. Acting upon that notification, from 1st March, 1991 from which date the capacity of telephone exchange system at Indore was enhanced the telephone bill to the complainant in respect of bi-monthly rental was sent at the rate of Rs. 250/-. The Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that as on 1st March, 1991 the actual working lines in exchange, Indore, were less than 30,000, therefore, the rental could not have been increased. The grievance of the Complainant in this case was that he was being charged excess rental in respect of his telephone number 39777.

THE Department contested the complaint alleging that as from 1st March, 1991 the capacity of the telephone exchange was increased to more than 30,000 lines. Therefore, the telephone bill in respect of rental from 1st March, 1991 sent to the Complainant was correct. The District Forum, Indore, where the complaint was filed went into details in respect of the terms "exchange system", "connectable capacity", "working connection" and "allotable capacities". Rules and guidelines issued by the Telephone Department, and came to a firm finding to the effect that "exchange system" as defined by the Telecom Department includes not only the actual working connections but also includes those which are not yet connected or started and also the connected capacity and, therefore, it was immaterial how many actual working lines were connected in the telephone exchange at Indore on 1st March, 1991. It, therefore, further held that as the exchange system at Indore had more than 30,000 lines, the increase in the rental was according to law. However, it held that the act of increase in the rental of telephone was made without prior intimation to the Complainant, he was not entitled to compensation for mental suffering which was quantified at Rs. 300/-. The District Forum directed the Telephone Exchange to pay the said amount plus Rs. 200/- as costs to the Complainant within one month failing which the above amounts would carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.

FEELING aggrieved, the Department filed an appeal before the State Commission which it remarked: "As per Indian Telegraph Rules and the Swamy''s Treatise on Telephone Rules p. 645, Section III " Scale of Charges for Departmental Exchange Connections, exchange system of 30,000 lines and above but below 1 lac lines, the rental amount shall be Rs. 250/- and upto 30,000 is Rs. 200/-. The table inserted by the G.I. Department of Telecom, Notification No. 3-14/90-R dated 29.3.90 was effective from 1.4.90. That clearly gives a picture that what is concerned is the lines and not the capacity. The very table given on p. 645 in the above book gives a clear picture that exchange systems having different number of lines will charge different rent and the table does not include the capacity of an Exchange."

It upheld the relief granted by the District Forum though on different grounds. The Department has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent who had appeared in person and gone through the record and the table of Tariff. It is not in dispute that according to the Tariff as amended from 1st April, 1990 bi-monthly rental for telephone exchange systems having 30,000 lines and above, but below 1 lac lines has been fixed at Rs. 250/-per telephone. The arguments of the Complainant Respondent is that earlier in the rules as modified upto 1.11.78 in the column ''telephone exchange systems'' the word "capacity" was used in respect of an exchange system, but in subsequent tables the word "capacity" was omitted and therefore, it must be presumed that omission was intentional and thus for determining the bi-monthly rental in respect of telephone exchange system capacity for a particular exchange is not to be taken into consideration but only working lines have to be considered for determining the bi-monthly rental. We fail to appreciate this argument. According to the amended Tariff, in the column "Telephone Exchange system" as against item No. 4, the words used are "exchange systems of 30,000 lines and above but below 1,000 lines" the bi-monthly rental is Rs. 250/-. Therefore, for determining the bi-monthly rental in respect of a telephone in a particular exchange we have to see the exchange system. The exchange system has been defined as "any Departmental Telephone Exchange or Exchanges and any lines connected therewith declared by the Telegraph Authority to be an exchange system". Thus, we have to take into consideration the installed capacity of the Exchange system and not merely the working connections which is a variable figure sometimes the number of telephones are connected to an exchange are placed in safe custody and some are disconnected for non-payment of dues. Some telephones might have been sanctioned but not connected as yet. By enhancing the capacity of Telephone Exchange System the Department incurs extra expenditure and that appears to be the reason why the Telecom Department has increased the bi-monthly rental for a telephone. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the State Commission was in error holding that the working lines of the Telephone Exchange System has to be taken into consideration for determining the bi-monthly rental. Hence its finding is liable to be set aside.

THE next point that arises whether the complainant was entitled to any notice prior to enhancement in the bi-monthly rental. The Complainant has not cited any rule to show that the rise in rental is to be brought to the notice of the subscriber. The Tariff was revised from 1st April, 1990. The line capacity in telephone exchange at Indore was increased from 1st March, 1991. Therefore, the Complainant was liable to pay the bi-monthly rental according to the revised Tariff. Accordingly, the relief granted by the District Forum and which was confirmed by the State Commission is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and dismiss the complaint which was filed by the present respondent. We make no order as to costs.