GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, TRICHY vs P.L. UNNAMALAI ACHI

THE opposite parties-Officers of the Telecom Department against whom an award has been passed are the appellants. THE complainant was the owner of the telephone No. 2632. His case is that for 12 years excepting for 2 occasions she was paying the minimum charges. But the bill dated 1.6.1992 was surprisingly for a large amount of Rs. 1,322/-. Making a protest she paid the amount. She sent a letter to the Department for disconnecting the STD facility. THE STD was disconnected on 20.6.1992. After that another bill was sent for the period 16.5.1992 to 15.7.1992 for a sum of Rs. 807/-. This bill also was excessive. Her complaints regarding this has not been considered by the opposite parties. According to the complainant she has paid an excess amount of Rs. 3,186/-. THE opposite parties have not taken any action or considered her protest. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

THE opposite parties contended that there was no excess billing. THE bills were prepared only on the basis of the real calls made by the complainant. Investigations showed that there was no defect in the meter. THErefore there was no deficiency in service on their part. THEy also contended that this is a matter which shall be referred to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and it is not a matter for consideration by the Consumer Forum. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that there were excessive bills as pleaded by the complainant. Thus holding the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 3,186/- which according to the complainant has been paid in excess and also a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- with a cost of Rs. 700/-.

Now in the appeal it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and probabilities in the case. On a careful consideration it appears to us that there is lack of evidence to show that any disputed bill was really excessive. The District Forum seems to have been very much influenced by the fact that almost all the previous bills were only for minimum charge and therefore the 2 bills for Rs. 1,322/- and Rs. 807/- must be excessive. But we are clearly of the view that only on the basis of the previous bills it cannot be held that any particular subsequent bill was excessive. Admittedly, the complainant was having the STD facilities till it was disconnected on his request on 20.6.1992. The burden is always on the complainant to show that the bills were excessive as alleged. Now, in a recent order of the National Commission in CII (1997) CPJ 60 (NC), it has been ordered as follows : "If any dispute concerning any telegraph lines, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the disputes shall be determined by arbitration. This Commission has frowned upon the practice of some of the District Fora in quashing the telephone bills and directing the Telecommunication Department to issue revised bill on the basis of averages. When there is a defect in the meter or telephone line, the proper course is to grant the relief and direct the dispute being settled within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act."

In view of the said order of the National Commission we are of the view that the proper course in this matter is to refer to Arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

IN this view of the matter we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. We direct the opposite parties to refer the matter to arbitration within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Appeal allowed.