GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs M.Ramasamy

THE four opposite parties Officers of the Telecommunications Department against whom an award has been passed are the appellants. THE complainant/respondent herein owns a telephone bearing No. 212936. In respect of it, a bill was issued on 1.10.1993 for Rs. 14,250/and another bill on 1,12.1993 for Rs. 13.494/-. THE complainant protested saying that the bills were excessive and he would not have made that much calls. According to the complainant, his phone was defective from 1.8.1993 and even though several representations were made to the opposite party, they did not rectify the defects in the instrument. He was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3.630/- in respect of each of the disputed bills, and he paid that amount. THEn, he was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 9,864/- immediately stating there was no defect in the equipment. THEn the phone was disconnected on 26.6.1993. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the Complaint was filed.

THE opposite party contended that on representation made by the complainant, a provisional bill was issued for Rs. 3,630/in respect of each of bills and he was asked to pay that amount pending consideration of investigation. But after investigation of the meter, it was found that there was no defect in the instrument and therefore, he was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9.864/- in respect of the first bill. Since the complainant did not pay this amount, the phone was disconnected on 26.6.1994 under Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the opposite party were at fault in not properly investigating the alleged defects and simply saying that there was no defect in the instrument the complainant was asked to pay the bill amount. On this finding, it ordered the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 20.484/- for both the disputed bills and a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. (It may be noted here that it is nobody''s case that the entire amount was paid by the complainant).

Now in the appeal, it is contended that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as correct in law. We find from the order of the District Forum that the main reason given for holding that the bills should have been excessive is that the average calls of the previous few months did not exceed Rs. 4.714/-. But in a number of cases, the National Commission has made it clear that the average phone calls should not be taken into account while considering the point whether any bill was excessive or not. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/ opposite parties brings to our notice a recent order of the National Commission in Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad v. Virender Kumar, II (1997) CPJ 60 (NC). In that order, it is stated that : "If any dispute concerning any telegraph lines, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appli ance 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 aserages. 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."

Considering this, we are of the view that the proper course in the present matter would be to refer the entire dispute in the matter to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 5, Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The opposite party are directed to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal allowed.