KAMLA AHUJA vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum-I dated 12.6.1996 passed in Complaint Case No. 796/1994 entitled Smt. Kamla Ahuja v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that she was a subscriber of telephone bearing No. 234805 installed at 1681/7, Bhagirath Place, Delhi and that the said shop was lying closed since 15.11.1982 and was not being used for any purpose whatsoever since its closure till date. Despite the fact that the telephone installed in the same premises was not in use the appellant received incorrect and highly inflated bills, dated 1.7.1992 for Rs. 16,617.99 p.; bill dated 1.9.1992 for Rs. 3,019.70 p.; as well as bill dated 1.11.1992 for Rs. 50,070/-. It was also the case of the appellant that she received another bill dated 19.7.1992 for Rs. 800/- towards double entry of the name of the appellant in the Telephone Directory whereas no such entry was made in the Directory of 1992. The appellant had protested against the said bills in writing, as well as, had also contacted the higher authorities but despite the same no action was taken by the respondent. On the contrary the respondent disconnected the other two telephones of the appellant bearing Nos. 3278327 and 3274759. It was, therefore, prayed by the appellant that the respondent be directed to revise the bills in respect of telephone No. 234805 and also be restrained from disconnecting the above said phone, as well as, to pay compensation to the complainant amounting to Rs. 12,900/-. The complaint was contested by the respondent/MTNL on the ground that on receipt of the representation of the appellant the matter was investigated thoroughly by the respondent and no defect was found in the internal and external installations, thus negating the allegation of the appellant that there may have been tampering in the telephone lines by the staff of the respondent, resulting in excessive billing. The result of the above said investigation was duly conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 21.1.1993. It was further stated by the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum that the bills sent to the appellant were correct as the telephone of the complainant was equipped with STD facility and the same had been in working order throughout. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, was liable to be dismissed with costs.

The learned District Forum on the basis of evidence/material on record before it held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as such dismissed the complaint of the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has filed the present appeal before us.

WE have carefully gone through the documents/material on record as well as have deliberated upon the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The short point in controversy raised by the appellant in the present appeal is as to whether the bills challenged by the appellant were excessive and incorrect and as such required to be revised by the respondent. In this regard the learned District Forum as per the impugned order had held that the complaint of the appellant regarding the incorrect and excessive bills was duly investigated by the respondent and no defect was found either in the metering equipment of the telephone in question or in the internal or external installations, so as to call for any conclusion that the same had been misused by the employees/staff of the respondent. The learned District Forum had also relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case entitled Telecom District Engineer, Dharamshala v. Prem Nath Mahajan, reported as I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC), wherein it had been held that unless there was any direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was probability of misuse of telephone, it could not be held that the bills raised were incorrect or excessive merely because the average billing for the period prior to the disputed period was on the lesser side. As such in the instant case also no independent evidence direct or circumstantial has been led, in order to prove that the telephone in question, which was duly equipped with STD facility and was in working order throughout, was either misused or the metering equipment was not reflecting correct calls. The mere fact that the shop in question remained closed w.e.f. 15.11.1982 does not preclude the presumption that the telephone in question installed therein, could not be used by the appellant or the family members of the appellant, as has been held by the learned District Forum vide the impugned order. WE have also carefully scrutinised the chart prepared by the appellant reflecting the bills received and paid for the period from 1.7.1986 till 1.11.1994, as well as the copies of bills placed on record. A bare perusal of the said documents itself belies the contention of the appellant that the telephone in question was not in use since 14.11.1982 till date. On the other hand the said documents duly reflect that calls were being made from the said telephone during the period 1.7.1986 to 1.11.1996 and the number of calls recorded also vary thereby proving that the telephone in question had been in constant use and that there was no consistent calling pattern, as the bills vary from Rs. 200/- per billing cycle to Rs. 1,495/- (excluding the disputed period). In the circumstances it cannot be said that the disputed bills were incorrect or excessive or that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the District Forum so as to call for any interference in the same in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. In consequence thereof the present appeal, filed by the appellant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.