GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM-/Opp. Party vs V.V.ESWARAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8.5.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 514/1990 on its file.

IT arises in this way:- The complainant is a subscriber of Telephone bearing No. 640650 installed in his residence. He received bills dated 11.7.1989 and 11.3.1990 for Rs. 209/- and Rs. 61/- respectively. According to him, he was sparingly using the phone and his telephone was misused by the telephone staff. Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum for quashing those two bills. The appellant although served with notice and a copy of the complaint, did not chose to file his version. The District Forum relied upon the averments made by the respondent. In his letter written to the Chief General Manager, Telecom Circle, Bangalore and in his affidavit to the effect that right from January 1986, the only occasion when his phone bill exceeded the minimum charges was between 22.10.1988 and 1.11.1988 when he was hospitalised for Cerebral Haemorrhage and that he did not make any excess, calls and quashed the said bills and directed the Telecom department to pay Rs. 217/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective dates of payment and costs of Rs. 50/- Hence, this appeal by the Telephone Department. It is not disputed by the respondent that his telephone was having STD facility till 21.3.1990. From this it is clear that the STD facility was barred subsequent to the dates of those two bills. When a subscriber complaints about the excess billing, he has to prove by adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by the employees of the department, particularly in a case where the subscriber has the STD facility as observed by the National Commission in The District Manager, Telephones & Ors. v. Niti Saran, I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), Revision Petition No. 67 of 1990 decided on 20.12.1990. The paper cuttings produced by the respondent are dated 16.7.1990 and 28.11.1990. They are subsequent to the dates of the bills in question. There is also nothing in those paper cuttings to probabalise the version of the respondent that his telephone was misused by the Telephone Department. As no evidence has been adduced by the respondent to show that the metering equipment was faulty or that the telephone was misused by the officials of the Telephone Department, the Order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained, as the bills are based on the metered calls.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs throughouts. Appeal allowed.