GHIYA TRADERS vs G.M., DISTRICT TELECOMMUMCATION, JAIPUR

COMPLAINANT Satya Narain Ghiya has come up in appeal against the order of District Forum, Jaipur dated November 23,1992 dismissing his complaint against alleged excessive billing in the telephone bill dated July 1, 1992.

COMPLAINANT Satya Narain Ghiya is proprietor of M/s. Ghiya Traders and he has a telephone connection since last about 25 or 26 years. His telephone number is 61754. He received a telephone bill dated July 1,1992 for a total amount of Rs. 2374/- which was alleged by him to be inflated and far excessive. He gave details of the past telephone bills from November 21, 1988 to May 21, 1992 in para 8 of his complaint and pleaded that during the above period the highest amount of the telephone bill was dated September 21,1990 for an amount of Rs. 8461 /- and the lowest amount of the bill was Rs. 257/-. The telephone has often remained out of order and he had made a complaint in this regard on 3.8.90. Owing to this complaint, the Telecommunication Department is harassing the complainant and wanted to cause him loss. Ortreceipt of the telephone bill dated July 1,1992, the complainant contacted the Telecommunication Deptt. but the Deptt. did not carry any investigation and told the complainant first to deposit the amount of the telephone bill and thereafter if any error was found in the bill, it would be adjusted. The telephone bill with respect to local calls amounting to Rs. 2072/- was said to be excessive. The complainant stated that it was not only his apprehension, but his belief that his telephone had been misused. He, therefore, prayed that the telephone bill dated July 1,1992 for the amount of Rs. 2,374/- may be quashed and the Telecom Deptt. may be directed to issue a revised telephone bill on the basis of average amount of past bills. He also prayed that bill his complaint was decided, his telephone may not be disconnected. He further claimed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for undue harassment and distress with Rs. 1,100/ as costs. Upon reference being made, the Opposite Party-respondent filed its version on Sept. 14,1992 before the District Forum. The Opposite Party stated in its reply that the telephone of the complainant is connected with STD. The telephone bill dated 1.7.92 covered 2280 local calls with respect to the period 15.4.92 to 16.6.92 which were not unusual in relation to a telephone connected with STD. Formula of giving telephone bill on the basis of average bills of preceding period was not applicable to such a telephone. The telephone bill was in accordance with departmental rules. 15 days time is given to a subscriber to deposit the telephone bill which expired in the instant case on 15.7.92. The complainant was reminded again and again about depositing the telephone bill and on his failing to make the deposit, the telephone was disconnected on 3.9.92. The Opposite Party further stated that the complainant did not make any complaint to the department against the telephone bill dated 1.7.92 and filed the complaint straightway without making any complaint to the Telecom Deptt. The complainant ought to have make a complaint before the Public Grievance Cell. He had further the remedy of filing appeal to higher authorities. He could also take proceedings under Indian Telegraph Act but without taking recourse to departmental remedies, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

The District Forum held that the complainant had not made any complainant to concerned officials of the Telecom Deptt. against the telephone bill dated 1.7.92 and, therefore, there was no question of splitting the bill by the Department for purposes of investigation. It also held that it was not established by any evidence by the complainant but there was any manipulation of local calls or misuse of complainant''s telephone by any other person. The District Forum further observed that merely because the complainant states that the telephone bill was excessive, no direction can be issued against the respondent to give revised bill to the complainant on average basis. It also held that a telephone bill of an amount of Rs. 2,374/- in respect of a telephone connected with STD cannot be said to be unusual or improbable. Consequently the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum the complainant has come in appeal before this State Commission.

COMPLAINANT argued his appeal himself. The complainant-appellant urged that the respondent had no where stated that it had carried out any investigation or checked the metering equipment to find out whether there was any fault in the equipment or not. The appellant submitted that the metering equipment and other means to investigate are under the control of the Telecom Deptt. The burden was upon the Department to establish that the telephone bill was correct. The Department even did not produce the fault card before the District Forum. He also argued that the telephone could not be disconnected without serving any notice upon the complainant. Even verbal reminders were not given to the complainant. The appellant has detailed various points of law arising in the appeal in pages 12 and 15 of the memorandum of appeal. He also referred to various decisions in support of his contentions. It cannot be disputed that the Consumer Disputes Forums have jurisdiction to decide disputes involving meter reading or excessive telephone billing. It is not necessary that the subscriber should first take recourse to Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

APPELLANT referred to the decision of Gauhati High Court in Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones reported in AIR 1990 Gauhati 47 and contended that possibility of false metering cannot be ruled out and it was mandatory for the Telecom Department to make investigation as provided in Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV, Chapter 15, paras 434,435. It may be noted that in Santokh Singh''s case, the subscriber had submitted complaint against excessive billings to the officials of Telecom Department and the telephone was disconnected even while the complaints were pending investigation. Reference was next made to the decision given by National Commission in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Ghevar Chand Sesamal Sonigara reported in 1992 (2) CPR 427. In this case, the telephone bill was for Rs.62,775/-. The appellant had justified the bill for such a large amount on the ground that the subscriber was having the STD facility. However it appeared that STD facility had been discontinued with effect from 26.2.87 at the request of the subscriber. The appellant in that case could not explain as to how the STD facility came to be restored when it had been discontinued with effect from 26.2.87. In Department of Telecommunication v. Patel Dahuabhai Bhikhabhai, 1993 (2) CPR 436, the complaint was decided by the District Forum merely on the basis of pleadings of the parties and, therefore, Gujarat State Commission remanded the matter. The next decision relied upon by the appellant was in the case of Hemand B. Shelat v. The General Manager, Ahmedabad Telecom District in 1992 (1) CPR 680. This decision has no relevance to the present case as in that case telephone line of the complainant was found to have been annexed with instrument of another subscriber. In Krishan Das Aggarwal v. Union of India and Others, 1992 (2) CPR 432, the U.P. State Commission has found as a fact that the telephone of the complainant remained out of order for a very long period and upheld the order of the District Forum in respect of adjustment of the rent for the months in which the telephone was out of order, but did not award compensation. National Commission held that the State Commission was not justified in disallowing compensation. In B.L. Chakku v. District Telecom Engineer and Others, I (1991) CPJ 263 the Telecommunication Department had itself given a rebate of Rs. 1,400/- with respect to the telephone bill for the period from 16.8.89 to 15.10.89 and this was held to be a clear acknowledgement of the fact that the billing was excessive.

THE correct procedure is that when a subscriber feels that he has been charged in excess of his usage, he should complain in writing to the concerned Divisional Engineer (Internal) furnishing all details. THEn it is necessary for the Department to take action to investigate the causes for the excess billing and to take appropriate action to reply to the subscriber. THE duty to investigate arises on receipt of a complaint in writing from the subscriber. On receipt of the excess metering complaint, the billing pattern is examined and a provisional bill is issued to the subscriber.

IN the present case, it is not even the assertion of the complainant in the complaint that he made any written complaint to the Telecommunication Deptt. official that the telephone bill in question was excessive. IN para 13 of the complaint, all that the complainant stated that he contacted the Department of Opposite Party. He even did not mention about any name or designation of the authority with whom he contacted. IN any event, there was no assertion that any complaint in writing was made. The respondent had stated in his reply that telephone of the complainant was connected with STD. The complainant did not file any rejoinder to deny this fact. In Telecom District Manager, Patna v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC)=(Revision Petition No. 44 of 1990 decided on 8.11.90) the National Commission held that there was no evidence to show that the metering equipment was defective or that it had been tampered with or manipulated so as to inflate the bills. It was also not correct to assume that there has to be a pattern of making telephone calls from a telephone, the number of telephone calls made by a subscriber can fluctuate considerably for many reasons. It may become necessary to make a fair and just determination of the calls made on the basis of the calling pattern over a period of time, only it it is established that the metering equipment is defective or has been tampered with or manipulated, resulting in the bill being inflated. It is not open to the Consumer Forum to base a finding of the bills having been inflated merely on the basis of suspicion and it will be not right to assume that there was something wrong with the mechanism without evidence and without identifying the precise defect in that mechanism.

In District Manager, Telephones v. Niti Sara, I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC) =(Revision Petition No. 67 of 1990 decided on 20.12.90) the National Commission held that particularly in cases where a subscriber has the STD facility there is every possibility of large variations in the calling pattern for various conceivable reasons. To the same effect are the decisions of the National Commission on Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M.S. Mukherjee (Revision Petition No. 111 of 1990 decided on 3.4.91), Divisional Manager Telephones, Lucknow v. M/s. Madhu Enterprises, II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC)=(First Appeal No. 97 of 1990 decided on 8.8.91) and Union of India v. Satya Narain Lal, III (1993) CPJ 335 (NC)=(Revision Petition No. 24 of 1992 decided on 27.9.93.)

THERE is no evidence in the instant case that the metering equipment was defective or that there had been tampering with the telephone connected by third parties. It would, therefore, not be correct to determine the bill amount on the basis of average of the calls made during preceding periods. As already stated, the complainant did not make any complaint or representation to the Telecom. Department complaining that the telephone bill was inflated or excessive. He straightway filed the complaint before the District Forum without getting the matter investigated by the Telecom Department by filing a written complaint in that Department. He had applied for an interim injunction in the District Forum restraining the respondent from disconnecting the telephone. That application was dismissed by the District Forum on 12.8.92 and the respondent disconnected the telephone of the complainant for non-payment of the bill during the pendency of his complaint before the District Forum.

SINCE the complaint failed to establish that there was any defect in the metering equipment or any manipulation by the Telecom Department, his complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum, Jaipur. The appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.