GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION vs R.S. AGASHE

THIS is an appeal filed by the Department of Tele Communication, Government of India against an order passed by District Forum, Indore directing refund of Rs.506/- with interest at the rate of 12% and Rs. 75/- as expenses on account of excess billing on the telephone connection of the respondent.

THE respondent has a telephone connection No. 33829 on which STD facility is not available. THE respondent is a retired Engineer who was in the service of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as Chief Engineer, Major Projects Investigation & Chambal Betwa Basin. He was also Director, Irrigation Research, Madhya Pradesh. At present he is a registered valuer & Consulting Engineer. The telephone connection was established on 25.6.1986. From that date till 25.1.1990 the calls made from this telephone were invariably within the free calls limit. For the period of 12 months preceding 26.1.90 the average calls made were 142 bi-monthly. For the 12 months earlier to 26.1.89 the average calls made on the telephone were 145 bi-monthly. The respondent disputed the bill dated 11.4.90 for the period from 20.1.90 to 313.90 which was of 1200 local calls for the period of two months. On 24.4.90 the complaint was sent to the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Indore. On 17/18th May, 1990 the complaint was rejected. An appeal was made to the District Manager, Telecom, Indore on 22.8.90, in response to which a rebate of 260 local calls was given. Not satisfied with this, the respondent filed the complaint before the Forum.

The appellant took a stand that there was no defect in the meter and rebate of 260 calls was also given on the basis of giving benefit of doubt. The District Forum after taking evidence on affidavits and after considering the material on record accepted the contention of the respondent and granted refund of Rs. 506/-. Against the order, the present appeal has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel and have perused the record. It is undisputed that STD facility is not available on the concerned telephone. From the meter reading statement filed by the appellants themselves before the Forum for the period from 21.5.89 onwards, it is clear that prior to the period of disputed bill the number of calls made from the telephone were between 120 to 170 for two months. The statement also shows fortnightly calls made from the telephone and the pattern of calls is clearly uniform and ranges between 20 to 60 per fortnight for the period upto the disputed bill. The statement shows that from 26.1.90 to 10.2.90 a period of 15 days suddenly the meter shows 680 calls. For the next fortnight i.e. from 112.90 to 25.2.90,90 calls were recorded. For the next fortnight i.e. from 26.2.90 to 10.3.90,170 calls were recorded and from 11.3.90 to 25.3.90,260 calls were recorded. Thus for the period from 26.1.90 to 253.90,1200 calls were recorded and accordingly a bill was sent to the respondent. The meter reading statement further shows that meter reading for the period beyond 26.3.90 was also excessive and dispute regarding that is pending before the Department. WE are, however, concerned with bill dated 11.4.90 only. From the aforesaid material on record. it is clear that the calls recorded for the period covered by the bill under dispute are not in accordance with the normal calling pattern of the consumer. In the face of this record, the contention of the appellants in their reply before the Forum that calling pattern was comparatively the same is clearly not borne out by the record. However, the question remains as to whether the calls were actually made by the consumer or not or they were result of a defective meter or misuse of telephone of the subscriber by someone else.

IN absence of any scientifically or technically perfect method for finding out this, the question has to be decided on the basis of a reasonable inference or a calculated guess with the help of material on record. The respondent-subscriber has filed his affidavits stating that the telephone is installed at his residence where he himself, his wife aged 60 years are residing. The other members of the family, the subscriber''s mother aged 82 years resides at Poona and the subscriber''s youngest daughter has not been residing with him after her marriage in December, 1990. .. In this affidavit the subscriber has further stated that he had no reason to make that many calls as his family is limited and he is a retired person. The subscriber''s contention is borne out by the earlier calling pattern on his telephone. Looking to the status in life enjoyed by the subscriber, it does not appear that he has lodged a false claim. If, the Forum has relied on his testimony, it cannot be said that it has committed any illegality. Moreover, the Department itself has expressed a doubt about the correctness of the meter reading and, therefore, granted a rebate of 260 calls. If, the meter reading was correct, there was no basis for granting rebate of 260 calls. If, the meter reading was doubtful, there is no reason why a rebate of 260 calls only should have been granted. If, the meter reading is doubtful the calling patter non the telephone for previous periods has to be followed. In this case, for years together right from 1986 the calling pattern was not more than 170 calls bimonthly. Even otherwise, though it is not impossible but it is absurd to suggest that between the period of fortnight from 26.1.90 to 10.2.90 as many as 680 calls at the rate of 45 calls per day were made by the subscriber whose earlier record shows that he has only made not more than 60 calls per fortnight i.e. 4 calls per day. The Forum has therefore, correctly decided the case and granted a rebate of Rs.506/-. The order under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity and does not deserve to be interfered with. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant shall pay costs of the appeal to the respondent. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-. Appeal dismissed.