GENERAL MANAGER, A.P.TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs PUSPA SHYAM LEATHERS PVT. LTD.

BY its order dated 10.1.1997 in C.D. No. 558/93, the Hyderabad District Forum directed the opposite parties i.e. officials of the Telecom Department "to remove me deficiency in their service in respect of Telephone No. 852535 of the complainant and for that purpose to reduce the call units of the impugned fortnight from 9230 call units to 1400 call units, to prepare the disputed bill dated 1.12.1992 afresh, to recover from the complainant the amount of such bill so prepared and to adjust the excess payment if any made by the complainant towards its future bills".

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Telecom Department officials preferred this appeal. As there is a delay of 189 days in preferring the appeal, this application is filed by the appellants requesting for condonation of the said delay. In support of the application an affidavit of the Divisional Engineer, Legal Cell-11 of the office of the General Manager, Hyderabad, Telecom District has been filed. It was stated in the affidavit among other things by the appellants that the District Forum pronounced the order on 10.1.1997, that the order copy was made ready on 10.1.1997 itself, but the Counsel appearing for the appellants before the District Forum obtained a copy of the said order only on 31.5.1997 and sent the same to the appellants on 2.6.1997, that on receipt of the order copy the file was referred to higher Authorities for sanction orders to file an appeal, that the file was misplaced in the office and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time and there was a delay of 189 days in filing the appeal. It was also stated that the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and the said delay has to be condoned in the interests of justice. The respondent sent a counter vehemently opposing this petition. It may be seen that the affidavit of the Advocate appearing for the appellants before the District Forum, Hyderabad has not been filed to show that there has been a delay on his part in sending the order copy to the appellants and that there is no indication in the affidavit as on what date the file was traced. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of 189 days in filing the appeal and that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the said delay. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the delay of 189 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The appeal is rejected. However in suo-motu exercise of revisional power vested in this Commission under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we have perused the material on record and the order of the Hyderabad District Forum. We see that the Hyderabad District Forum went wrong in coming to the conclusion that the line of the complainant''s phone has been tapped by third parties with the help of the staff of the appellants'' department and that the impugned fortnightly bill dated 1.12.1992 showing the call units at 9230 is excessive and therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of appellants, since the District Forum does not appear to have referred to the principles laid down by the National Commission in the decisions viz., Telecom District Engineer, Dharmsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan, I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC), and Union of India, Secretary, Department of Telecom & Ors. v. Satya Narain Lal, III (1993) CPJ 335 (NC). In these decisions the National Commission held that "unless there is evidence to show that the metering equipment is defective or there has been tampering with the telephone connection by third parties it would not be legally correct for the Consumer Forums to determine the bills on the basis of average of the calls made during the earlier periods nor is the Consumer Forum justified in disregarding the fact that the bills will be heavy if the consumer avails of the STD facility and that STD calls made are not recorded separately from local calls when the Exchanges are not Electronic". In this case, the appellants pleaded that the subject telephone has been working from the non-electronic exchange and therefore, there was no provision for obtaining the STD call particulars, that though the STD facility of the subject telephone was barred, there is possibility of using the STD facility and that the equipment did not suffer from any defect. It may be seen that there is no allegation by the complainant that the metering equipment is defective or there has been tampering with the telephone connection by the third parties with the connivance of the officials of the department. There is also no evidence to that effect. Still the District Forum on the mere ground that the call rate mentioned in the impugned bill is in excess when compared to the earlier call rate, came to the conclusion that the line of the complainant''s telephone was tampered with by the third parties with the collision of the officials of the department. We are afraid this conclusion of the District Forum is not correct when there is no evidence to show that the telephone was tampered by the third parties with the collusion of the department officials and that the metering equipment is defective. Accordingly, we hold that there has been improper exercise of the jurisdiction by the District Forum in this case and the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

In the result, in suo motu exercise of revisional power vested in this Commission under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we set aside the order of the District Forum. However, in view of the fact that the bill is said to be excessive, we direct the appellants (opposite parties in the C.D.) to refer the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act if the complainant makes a representation for a reference of the matter to the Arbitrator within one month from the date of the said representation after giving notice to the complainant. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings the department officials shall not disconnect the complainant''s telephone for non-payment of the impugned bills and shall not recover the balance of the disputed bill amount. The disputed bill amount shall be subject to the result of the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly this F.A.S.R. No. 2042/97 is disposed of. Appeal disposed of. ________________