GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs MOHAN RAO

THE complainant is a medical practitioner. He has a phone facility with indicator No. 31991. From the date of installation of the telephone, till September, 1995, the telephone bill did not go above Rs. 500/- per bill. While so, on 1st September, 1995, the bill amount was shown in a sum of Rs. 1,268/-. THE complainant contacted the opposite party and requested them to rectify the mistake and refund the excess amount. THE opposite party submitted that there was no mistake in the meter and the question of refund does not arise. THEy did not rectify the mistake. THEy also failed to put the phone under observation to find out whether there was any misuse of the phone. But in the next bill for November, 1995 the amount was shown as Rs. 4,890/-. THE complainant called upon the opposite parties to show the details of the calls made by him. It was found that 4/5th of the calls were not made by the complainant and the members of his family and the numbers that were contacted were not at all connected either with the profession of the complainant or his family. Bringing it to the notice of the opposite party, the complainant wrote to them. But the opposite party rejected the complainant''s complaint. Hence a legal notice was issued. Hence the complaint.

THE opposite parties filed their version stating that the phone was installed on 20.9.1994 and is connected to Electronic Exchange where there are facilities to record all call details. THE complainant is disputing the bills dated 1.9.1995 and 1.11.1995. Such disputes can be only settled by means of arbitration. On investigation with regard to the complainant''s bill dated 1.9.1995, it was found that there was no fault to cause excess metering. THE bill was thus based upon the actual calls made and calculated accordingly. Since there was no excess billing, the complainant''s request was rejected. Similarly, as regards the bill dated 1.11.1995, investigation was made and it was found that there was no fault. THE complainant has not paid the arrears till 20.5.1997. THErefore, the Department disconnected the phone of the complainant on 20.5.1997. THEre is no contractual liability. THEre is no deficiency in service. The Lower Forum by its order dated 20.10.1999, allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to give fresh bills for September, 1995 and November, 1995 by eliminating the STD calls mentioned in the disputed bills and to restore the disconnected phone forthwith.

The main contention of the complainant is that there is excess billing for the months of September, 1995 and November, 1995. It is denied by the opposite party. The bill for the month of September, 1995 is shown in a sum of Rs. 1,268/- while the bill for November, 1995 is shown in a sum of Rs. 4,890/-. From the records produced, we find that several STD calls were made during the period through that phone. He has further stated that he has nothing to do with the telephone numbers mentioned in the bill and neither himself nor his family members made any STD calls as found in Ex. C12. The opposite parties have not chosen to give a list of persons who were contacted and their telephone numbers as found in the bill Ex. C12 so that they could establish by doing so that the persons had something to do with the complainant. When the complainant disputes the same and specifically he also writes a letter, it is the duty of the opposite party to satisfy the complainant. By simply stating that the subscriber has made numerous STD calls, they cannot answer the charge of excess billing effectively. The complainant is a responsible person. He is a doctor by profession. He is in Government service and he is the Resident Medical Officer in Government Headquarters Hospital. There could not have been any motive for him to say that those calls were not made by him. Moreover, the opposite parties should have produced records to show that from the date of installation the bi-monthly telephone bill of the complainant has been ranging around Rs. 1,000/- per bill. Those particulars are also not furnished by the opposite parties. What we find is a jump in the bill. What was Rs. 1,268/- in September, 1995 became Rs. 4,890/- in November 1995. If the increase has been gradual, one can understand some sense in the contention of the opposite party. The complainant is not a businessman. For, it is normally businessmen who use the telephones extensively for their business purposes by making STD calls to long distances and usually incur higher charges towards bi-monthly telephone bills. Therefore, on the face of it, there appears to be something odd about the two bills. The opposite parties cannot hide under the clock of any Department Manual or Rules when they are extending a service for which they are collecting charges and when a person viz., the customer complains that there has been excess billing, it is the duty of the opposite party viz., Telephone Department to satisfy the subscriber as to how there is excess billing. At least, after the matter had come to Court, one would expect them to produce the materials to show that the user of the telephone by the complainant has been on the high side throughout or that the parties to which it is alleged that he had booked STD calls were really the parties contacted by him and there is no including of the calls of other third parties subscriber in his bill. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the lower Forum is based upon proper reasoning and, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the lower Forum. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.