GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION vs DALAL RAM GOPAL And COMPANY

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. This appeal is reported to be barred by limitation by four days. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

THE complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur alleging that the two telephone bills dated 11.6.90 for the amount of Rs. 4,061/- with respect to local calls and bill dated 11.8.90 for an amount of Rs. 8,111/- for local calls sent to him were excessive. THE complainant gave below para 1 of the complaint details of the preceding telephone bills which were received from 11.12.88 to 11.4.90. This detail of previous billing goes to show that when the complainant had STD facility, the maximum amount of the bill which he received was Rs. 2,952 /- and the minimum amount of the bill was Rs. 695/-. THE complainant made complaint with regard to excessive telephone bills. He also made an application for baring the STD facility and the STD facility was barred on 26.5.90. Despite baring of the STD facility with effect from 26,5.90, the complainant received telephone bill dated 11.8.90 in which the bill for local calls was for Rs. 8,111/-. THE opposite party intimated to the complainant that they had made necessary investigation and there was no fault in the metering equipment. THE complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur praying that the opposite party may be directed to give to the complainant bill for correct amount and pay Rs. 20,000 /- as compensation for mental distress and agony. THE complainant stated that he had never used the telephone to the extent the bills were received. The opposite party filed their version and stated that the complainant had telephone since 20.1.89 and he had STD facility upto 25.5.90. It was admitted that the two telephone bills were sent and on the application of the complainant the STD facility was barred on 26.5.90. The opposite party stated, that the telephone bill for the period from 11.6.90 was with respect to the period from 26.3.90 to 25.5.90 and during this period the complainant had STD facility. It was also said that the complainant had not made any complaint with regard to the bill dated 11.6.90. The complainant deposited the amount of the bill dated 11.6.90. As regards the telephone bill dated 11.8.90, it was stated by the opposite party that when the complainant made the complaint, the telephone bill was split up and the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,400/-. The telephone bill dated 11.8.90 was for the period from 26.5.90 to 25.7.90. Upon the complaint made by the complainant, necessary investigation was made and no defect was found in the metering equipment. The opposite party also pleaded that the telephone was put on MLOE during the period from 9.7.90 to 17.7.90 and it was found that the complainant during this period had made 198 STD calls and 70 local calls. The opposite party pleaded that even after the STD facility is bared, the complainant again and again dialed ''zero'' number and by this method, he was able to use STD. The opposite party also stated that during this period the complainant had dialed STD Code Nos. 0322, 011, 0272 and 0294. It was, therefore, pleaded that the telephone bill was not incorrect.

We may mention that the District Forum, Jaipur has not granted any relief to the complainant with respect to the first telephone bill in question dated 11.6.90 on the ground that the complainant had STD facility attached to his telephone upto 26.5.90 and, therefore, it could not be said that the bill dated 11.6.90 was inflated. However, the District Forum, Jaipur quashed the telephone bill dated 11.8.90 which was for a total amount of Rs. 8,652/- and directed the opposite party to charge from the complainant on the basis of average of telephone bills of the preceding one year and to give to the complainant an amended telephone bill and adjust the amount of the split bill which the complainant had deposited as against the amount of the amended telephone bill. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

AS already stated, it is not in dispute in the present case that the complainant had got the STD facility barred on his telephone and the said facility was barred from 26.5.90. It cannot, therefore, be said that after the baring of the STD facility to the telephone of the complainant, he could dial STD Code Nos. and talk on them. It is not the case of the opposite party that the STD facility was only barred by way of just a show and not effectively. On the other hand, the opposite party has admitted in its version that the STD facility had been barred. The entire case of the opposite party was that although the STD was disconnected on 26.5.90, but the MLOE report showed that STD was frequently attempted and used by dialing STD codes mentioned above during the period from 9.7.90 to 17.7.90. This MLOE report can only show that during the period from 9.7.90 to 17.7.90 certain STD codes were dialed. It does not indicate that this dialing was made by the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that during the preceding period, the complainant had dialed the same telephone numbers on STD which had been recorded in the MLOE report for the period from 9.7.90 to 17.7.90. When admittedly the STD facility was barred with effect from 26.5.90, the burden shifted upon the opposite party to establish that it was the complainant who had adopted any device to talk on STD despite the fact that it was barred. In the absence of that evidence, the necessary inference was that it were the employees of the Telecommunication Deptt. who had misused the telephone of the complainant. We may refer to an earlier decision of this State Commission in the case of P.K. Goyal v. General Manager, Telephones, Distt. Jaipur, reported in I (1992) CPJ 69 wherein it was held that where telephone number was without STD facility and still it worked for STD, it was deficiency in service and for it no charge can be included in the local calls bill. We agree with the view of this State Commission given in P.K. Goyal''s case. The District Forum was, therefore, justified in passing the order with respect to the second telephone bill dated 11.8.90. This appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of the order will be sent to the complainant by post at the expense of the State Commission. Appeal dismissed.