GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES vs NARANJAN DASS

FIRST Appeal Nos. 382 and 423 being cross appeals are bath directed against the order of the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar partly allowing the complaint of the consumer. This order will govern both of them.

THE representative matrix of facts may be noticed on First Appeal No. 382 General Manager Telephones v. Naranjan Dass. THE respondent is the subscriber of telephone No. 24338 which admittedly had an S.T.D. facility attached thereto. His primal grievance was with regard to a bill dated the 1st of March, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 15756/- . It was the case that a departmental complaint with regard thereto was made to the appellant-department which on investigation did not find favour with the latter. THE plea was that the previous bills of the complainant had not exceeded Rs. 4000/- and primarily on that score and the earlier pattern of calling the bill was labelled as excessive and inflated. The appellant-department strenuously contested the complaint and controverted all material allegations therein. It was highlighted that the respondent not only enjoyed the S.T.D. facility but made a liberal thereof by making inter-national calls there from apparently for business and personal purposes. It was the case that noticing the spurt in the consumers calls a multiline observation equipment was installed on his number which had recorded each and every call which clearly showed prolonged calls being made to the relevant numbers in the United States of America. The firm plea was that the metering system had been checked and found perfectly in order and the bill was reiterated to be in accordance with the automatically recorded calls.

It would appear that the respondent hardly led any evidence at all worth name in support of his case. On the other hand the appellant-department put in the affidavit of Sh. Raj Pal Nanda which was not challenged by way of cross-examination at all. Further the appellants placed on the record a computerised statement of calls from the multi-line observation equipment which conclusively supported their stand.

THE District Forum in its order which is remarkable because of its brevity cryptically held that taking into consideration the previous history of the complainant, the ends of justice would be met if the complainant was allowed to pay only Rs. 12,000/- against the disputed bill. THE complaint was allowed in these terms merely in a few lines. Mr. Arun Walia, the learned Counsel for the appellant has forcefully challenged the orders of the District Forum as being utterly unreasoned and against the very teeth of a long line of precedent of the National Commission culminating in Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan, I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC).

THERE is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. Herein it is common ground that the respondent is the partner of a prestigious business concern M/s. Naranjan Engineering Works, Yamuna Nagar. Inevitably the telephone facilities were being used for business and personal purposes. Nor is it in doubt that during the relevant period and subscriber had enjoyed S.T.D. facilities and used it liberally by making even international calls there from. This fact had to be even accepted by the District Forum, because it has reduced the bill to a figure of Rs. 12,000/- which obviously implies a frequent use of the S.T.D. facility. What is more is the fact that the appellant-department had noticing a spurt in the calling pattern of the respondent installed a multi-line observation equipment on the telephone. The print out there from was produced on the record and accepted without any meaningful challenge. This on the face of it indicated both the frequency and the length of inter-national calls made as far as to the United States of America. The firm stand of the department was that even after a full investigation, no defect in the metering system was found and there was not even an allegation of any malpractice on the part of the employees of the department. The affidavit of Sh. Raj Pal Nanda was placed on the record on behalf of the department and apparently this was not even sought to be challenged by way of cross-examination. In this context the ratio in Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan (supra) is automatically attracted and the District Forum had not the least foundational base for scaling down the disputed bill to an arbitrary figure of Rs. 12,000/ only. It suffices to record that the majority view in the aforesaid case was in the following terms:- "We have repeatedly held that the Consumer Redressal Forums will not be legally justified in taking over the function of estimating by application of the rule of thumb the precise number of calls made unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by some unauthorised person in collusion with the employees of the Department, particularly in cases where a subscriber has the STD facility see District Manager, Telephones v. Niti Saran, I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC) Revision Petition No. 67 of 1990. Again in Telecom District Manager v. M.S. Mukherjee : Revision Petition No. 111 of 1990 we held that it was not legally permissible to take the average number of calls in the previous bills for a given period as the basis of ascertaining what should be fixed as the reasonable number of chargeable calls in the billing period. In the present case there is neither direct nor even circumstantial evidence to show that there was probability of such misuse of the telephone."

The aforesaid ratio covers the case in favour of the appellant department and consequently First Appeal No. 382 of 1993, General Manager Telephones v. Naranjan Dass must be allowed and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint preferred by the respondent-consumer. Inevitably the Cross-Appeal No. 423 of 1993 preferred by the complainant seeking further relief and reduction in the disputed bill must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.