GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM vs RAMJIDAS AGARWAL

THIS is an appeal filed by Telephone Department against the order dated 21.3.1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in their Case No. 601/94 wherein the Forum has directed the appellant to cancel the charges for 1784 units from the bill dated 1.5.1994 and for 3620 units from the bill dated 1.7.1994 and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as proceeding charges to the complainant/respondent.

NONE appeared for the respondent but written arguments were filed on record, which are perused. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant. The arguments of the appellant are that the phone had dynamic lock facility which was not used by the appellant. There is no fault with the meter. The affidavit of Girja Shankar Mishra, Accounts Officer has been filed who has supported the defence of the appellant.

On a perusal of the reply given before the District Forum by the Telephone Department and the affidavit given by Mr. Girja Shankar Mishra, Accounts Officer, we find that neither in the reply nor in the affidavit, it has been stated anywhere that the phone of the complainant had ISD facility. This reply and affidavit both state that the phone had STD facility. The reply of the Department in para 5 is that the complainant could have used STD lock facility, but, he did not and used telephone for his business purposes and the bills for Rs. 2,672/- and Rs. 4,845/- have been rightly issued. The Accounts Officer has further stated in his affidavit that since the payment has been made no dispute remains pending for disposal.

THE total units for both the bills are 5443 for outstation calls. Out of these 5443 outstations calls only 71 units are for STD calls. THE rest of all are for ISD calls for only four ISD numbers. Out of these ISD calls, 2700 units are for USA Nos. 00112233319842 and 0011223333421 and 1100 are for Netherlands No. 0031852172378, 1100 units are for Australia No. 00611003147 and 500 units are again for Australia No. 00611002356. Thus, entire ISD calls are for these five numbers only. In the first bill containing 1804 units, these ISD calls were made only on three date i.e. 9.4.1994,13.4.1994 and 14.4.1994 and all at about 11 to 12 O''clock in the night. Similarly, in the second bill containing 3606 units, we find these calls were also made on three dates only 21.4.1994, 24.4.1994 and 30.4.1994, all against between 11 and 12 O''clock on the night. It is to be noted here that the telephone was installed on 8th April and in this month only all these ISD calls were made on only six days and 50% calls were for only two numbers in USA and the rest for one number of Netherland and two numbers in Australia. The complainant has in the very first paragraph of his complaint stated that he had never requested for ISD facility for his telephone No. 329443 installed on 8.4.1994. He further stated that in the form submitted by him, it was nowhere stated by the complainant that he wanted ISD facility. In the reply, the Telephone Department has simply said that they have no information regarding the averments made by the complainant in the first paragrah of the complaint. They have not said anywhere in the reply that this telephone had ISD facility. In the affidavit also, it has not been said that this telephone had ISD facility. The reply of the department and also the affidavit of the Accounts Officer of the department simply said that telephone has STD facility and that the complainant made full use of STD facility. We fail to understand as to what enquiry the Telephone Department has made, when as stated above, out of 5443 calls, STD calls are only 71 and rest are ISD calls. Since, the Telephone Department has not denied this allegation that ISD facility was not provided on this phone it is presumed that the phone has no ISD facility and it was misused fradulently by some employee of the department through the exchange or through some other ways.

WE had recently disposed of Appeal No. 741/95 in which also there were allegations of fradulent misuse of telephone at Bhopal. On a perusal of that file, we find that one Dr. Patnayak had protested against excess billing of his telephone No. 61065 and during the course of enquiry, the Telephone Department detected that subscriber of phone No. 61045 in conspiracy with some employee of the Telephone Department had made STD calls through phone No. 61065 of Dr. Patnayak and these calls were recorded in the metre reading of phone No. 61045 and therefore telephone department sent the bills for excess meter readings to the subscriber of telephone No. 61045. When in a complaint of excess billing, the Telephone Department got such detailed enquiry conducted as to trap a different phone No. 61045 fradulently misusing the different phone No. 61065 for STD calls in conspiracy with some employee of the Department. Very heavy duty was cast on the Telephone Department to conduct an enquiry, where more than 99% calls were ISD and not STD and for only five phones out of which more than 50% were for only two phones in USA. When the phone had no ISD facility, the Telephone Department should have enquired as to whether those phones had any connections with complainant as enquired in case of Dr. Patnayak''s excess billing complaint. Enquiry was to be made about only five Nos., whereas in the case of Dr. Patnayak, Telephone Department enquired about various numbers which were connected. But the Telephone Department made no enquiry at all and submitted a simple reply that the consumer had dynamic lock facility and telephone was used for STD calls. The Telephone Department did not say a word whether this phone had ISD facility or not. This is not only "deficiency" in "service" but fradulent misuse of a subscriber''s phone in conspiracy with some employee of the Telephone Department. Instead of conducting an enquiry and giving relief to the consumer and punishment to the employee or employees responsible for malpractice, the Telephone Department said that since the bills have been paid no dispute remains pending. Not only this, even after the District Forum made the position clear in his judgment, instead of realising their mistake, the senior level officers filed this appeal before us without any reason or justification, only to harass the consumer. The pleadings in appeal memo are not based on facts but are vague. It has been argued that the order of the Forum is erroneous, arbitrary, illegal and illogical but how, has not been stated. It has nowhere been stated in the appeal memo also that this phone had ISD facility. Probably, the department knew it well that there was no force in appeal, that is why the pleadings in appeal were almost "nil" except condemning the order of the Forum in several words.

THERE was absolutely no justification for filing an appeal before us. This simply shows high handedness of the department. Such flimsy appeals not only cause unnecessary mental tension to the victims seeking relief under Consumer Protection Act, but also involve wasteful expenditure of the department which is also public money. Instead of taking precautionery steps to avoid such malpractices, by filing such appeals, the department on the other hand, simply encouraged its mischievous employees not to be afraid of such mala fide and corrupt activities.

AS such, we not only dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of the District Forum with minor amendment that in the first bill, the units/ calls to be cancelled will be 1756 instead of 1784 and the second bill, the units/calls to be cancelled will be 3616 instead 3620 these being the errors in mathematical calculations. We, further direct that the appellant shall pay 18% interest on this amount of Rs. 5,372/- w.e.f. the date of filing this appeal till its refund or adjustment in subsequent bills for further mental agony or oppression suffered by the complainant as a result of this appeal. 12.Without ordering as such, we, however, invite the attention of the appellant, for future guidance, to AIR 1994 SC 787, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has directed that after payment of compensation to the complainant, this amount should be recovered from those who are responsible for wrongful action. 13. We further direct that copy of this order be sent to Chief General Manager, M.P. Circle, Bhopal for perusal and necessary action. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.