DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES-/ vs JASODA DEVI LAKHOTIA

THE instant appeal is arising against the order dated 23.7.1992, 17.8.92, 26.8.92, 28.8.92 and 2.9.92 passed by Calcutta District Forum in Case No. 621 of 1992. THE appellant alleged that all the impugned orders were passed by Calcutta District Forum without allowing for appellant to make proper submission and the orders were passed without proper application of mind and without considering the merit of the case of the appellant. It has also been alleged that there was no occasion to pass an order for the appearance of the Divisional Engineer, Consumers Forum, in person before the Calcutta District Forum by its order dated 2.9.92 and the appeal has been preferred on 4.9.92. THE Complainant filed a complaint with the allegations that she has been receiving highly inflated and exhorbitant bill against her telephone being No. 78-1470 (old No. 49-5570) since June, 1991. THE complainant through number of letters to the Telephone Authorities raised her voice protesting, against the inflated bills. In her letter dated 27.9.1992 the complainant stated that the bill for the month of June, 1991, i.e. Rs. 5,073/- is highly inflated and requested the telephone authorities to correct the bill. Through another letter dated 26.11.91 the petitioner raised her voice against the bill of Rs. 10,216/- for cycle 10/91 dated 12.6.91 and the complainant also pleaded for a corrected bill not exceeding Rs. 600/-. THE com-plainant/consumer also protested against the impugned bills of Rs. 14,671/- and Rs. 2,382/- dated 10.10.191 and 10.12.91 respectively. But without giving any reply to the letters and pending disposal of the disputes raised before the Telephone Authorities the telephone line of the consumer was disconnected sometimes in the month of December, 1991 and subsequently the line was not restored. It was further stated by the complainant when there was no telephone connection since December, 1991 a bill amounting to Rs. 50,310/- dated 10.2.92 was served upon the consumer. She lodged her protest against the said bill through a letter dated 11.3.92 with a request to investigated the matter and to correct the bills. All the letters were duly received by the Telephone Department but neither any investigation was made nor any reply was given. As such the telephone line remained disconnected since December, 1991.

BEING frustrated without having any reply from appellant the consumer filed the complaint before the Calcutta District Forum and after hearing the parties number of orders passed directing the appellant to raise provisional bills against each impugned bills, of Rs. 600/- within 7 (seven) days from receipt of the orders. Inspite of proper service of the orders appellant did not care to raise such provisional bills and ultimately when the matter was brought to the notice of District Forum, Calcutta, an order was passed on 2.9.92 directing the Divisional Engineer to be present before the Calcutta District Forum to explain the reason for non-compliance of the orders. The appellant preferred an appeal on 4.9.92. The consumer further alleged that when a dispute is raised Telephone Authorities cannot disconnect the telephone line. All earlier bills were never more than an average of Rupees Six hundred as such all the impugned bills are illegal and inflated and all the bills under protest are liable to be quashed. The present appeal is barred by limitation and in the aforesaid facts and circumstance it is very surprising to observe that appellant, inspite of receipt of number of letters protesting against the inflated bills remained silent since June, 1991. From the foregoing facts it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that Telephone Department has nothing to justify the impugned bills. In the circumstances we firmly hold that all the impugned bills are liable to be quashed and there is no necessity to refer the dispute to arbitration. It is also surprising to note that the Calcutta Telephone does not even bother to reply to the letter written by the consumer when the consumer protested against the bills and suffered from disconnection of his telephone line, without notice. In the matter of Santosh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong and Others reported in AIR 1990 Gau. (47), it was held that telephone of a subscriber cannot be disconnected for nonpayment of excessive and inflated bills when complaint is lodged against the excessive bill. The Telephone Authorities, disconnected the line in the month of December, 1991 without giving any notice or with-out showing any reasons. In a case decided on 3.1.90 in the matter of V.P. Mehta v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and Ors. by the Division Bench, Delhi High Court it was held that before disconnection for non-payment of dues under Rule 443 notice must be issued to the subscriber but in this case no such notice was issued. In AIR 1980 SC 2117, it was held that disconnection without notice is violative of the principle of the natural justice and liable to be set aside. The same observation has been made in the cases reported in 1992 (1) CPR 241 by the State Commission, Orissa in the matter of Smt. M. Sabat v. The Divl. Officer, Telecom & Ors. that disconnection of telephone on the ground of non- payment of dues but without intimation to the subscriber amounts to deficiency in service. As such the disconnection of telephone in the month of December, 1991 was illegal, arbitrary and malafide.

It has been held in a catena of judgments passed by the National Commission and the State Commissions that in the matter of excess billing the State Commission has jurisdiction to decide a disputes involving exhorbitant and/or excess billing. In a decision reported in I (1991) CPJ 172 (NC) held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide a disputes involving meter reading or excess billing even when such disputes might be covered under Indian Telegraph Act. The same observation has been made in a decision reported in I (1992) CPJ 47 (NC) in the matter of District Manager, Telephone Patna v. Dr. Tarun Bharhua & Ors. that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide a dispute involving meter reading or excess billing which are covered under Section 7(8) of Indian Telegraph Act 1985. The same observation has been made by the State Commission, Gau and the same judgments are reported in (1992) (2) CPR 494, 476 in the matter of S.N. Phukan & Ors. v. The Chief'' General Manager and in the matter of Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. Director, Telecom Department, respectively.

WE therefore hold that the appellant has acted arbitrarily vindictively and in excess of its powers, appellant failed and neglected to reply to the letters protesting against the impugned bills written by consumer which undoubtedly. It shows the indifferent and unlawful discharging of duties on the part of appellant. WE therefore pass the following orders: ORDER The appellant is directed to raise 5 bills against 5 impugned bills to the tune of Rs, 600/- against each and complainant will pay the same within a week thereafter. Appellant will not take any action contrary to the interest of complainant for non-payment of the impugned bills till 7 days after receipt of the 5 corrected bills. The appellant is further directed to keep the telephone line in order. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. Thus the appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost. Appeal disposed of.