DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM HYDERABAD vs S. LAXMAIAH

ON a complaint petition filed by the respondent herein alleging that from May, 1993 to 1995 he was getting phone bills ranging from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 400/- that suddenly on 1.11.1995 he received a bill for Rs. 2,252/-, that thereupon he gave a representation to the Telecom Department to bar the STD facility, that even subsequently he received a bill dated 1.1.1996 for sum of Rs. 5,880/- and another bill dated 1.7.1996 for sum of Rs. 13,184/-, that he then gave a representation to the Telecom Department complaining that the said bills were excessive and that in spite of the same the phone was disconnected on 7.3.1996 and that, therefore, the Department should be directed to revise the bills dated 1.1.1996 and 1.7.1996 and to treat those bills as bills for Rs. 500/- each, the Ranga Reddy District Forum after taking the said complaint petition on file as CD. No. 190/1996 and after considering documents Exs. A-l to A-6 marked on behalf of the complainant held that the said bills created lot of suspicion in view of the fact that the concerned Gram Panchayat Office issued Ex. A-2 statement stating that from 1.10.1995 to 29.2.1996 the complainant and his family members were not residing in the house and his house was kept locked and that therefore, those two bills are excessive. Accordingly the District Forum passed an order dated 2.5.1997 directing the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Telecommunications (Hyderabad Rural) to treat the said bills dated 1.1.1996 and 1.7.1996 as bills for Rs. 500/- each and directed the complainant to pay the said amounts within two months from the date of that order.

AGGRIEVED by the said order the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Telecommunications (Hyderabad Rural) preferred the appeal. It is submitted by the lea mod Counsel for the appellant department that the District Forum went wrong in arbitrarily deciding that the bills dated 1.1.1996 and 1.7.1996 are for excessive amounts without any material to show that the metering equipment is defective and that in view of the decision of the National Commission in Divisional Engineer, Telecom Moradabad v. Virender Kumar, II (1997) CPJ 60 (NC), wherein it was held that "if any dispute concerning any telegraph lines appliance apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the disputes shall be determined by arbitration, that this Commission has frowned upon the practice of some of the District FORA in quashing the telephone bills and directing the Telecommunication Department to issue revised bill on the basis of average and that when there is a defect in the meter or telephone line, the proper course is to grant the relief and direct the dispute being settled within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act", the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. It may be noted that it is not the case of the complainant that there is defect in the metering equipment or that mere is tampering of telephone lines by third parties in collusion with me staff of the Telecom Department. In its earlier decision in Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan, I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC), the National Commission held that the average of me earlier bills cannot be taken into consideration in arriving at the correctness of impugned bills and that in the absence of evidence that there is defect in the meter or that there is any mal-practice or mis-use by the staff of the Telecom Department, the bills cannot be quashed.

Keeping in view the above decisions of the National Commission, we hold that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. Hence the order of the District Forum is set aside.

HOWEVER in view of the fact that the bills dated 1.1.1996 and 1.7.1996 of the telephone of the complainant are for higher amounts, we direct the Competent Authority of the Telecom Department to refer the said bills to the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 on a representation to be made by the complainant within six weeks from today i.e. by 28.4.1998 to decide the excessiveness or otherwise of the bills within a period of three months from the date of reference. Pending arbitration proceedings the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the bill dated 1.1.1996 and a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards the bill dated 1.7.1996 and the appellant department shall restore the telephone connection on the complainant paying the said amounts and the Department shall not take steps for collection of the balance of the said bill amounts. The amounts covered by the disputed bills dated 1.1.196 and 1.7.1996 shall abide the result of the arbitration proceedings. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. If the complainant does not make any representation for a reference to arbitration by 28.4.1998 the appellant Department is at liberty to recover the amounts demanded. Appeal disposed of.