KANWARSAIN AGARWAL vs D.E.TELEPHONE

THE allegations of the complainant/petitioner inter alia are that he is the subscriber to Telephone No. 388603 which was subsequently changed to 348603 effective from 20.1.1990 and that the STD facility of the petitioner/complainant telephone was barred from 23.4.1990. That the petitioner/complainant received the bill for Cycle Nos.5/90, 7/90, 9/90, 11/1990, 1/ 1991, 3/1991, 5/1991 & 7/1991 only for the rental charges in the respective cycles and in the said cycles no calls were recorded as per bills submitted by the Telephone Authority except in Cycle Nos. 7/1990 where 14 calls were recorded and 7/1991 where 20 calls were recorded but in Cycle No. 9/1991, the Opposite Parties/Telephone Authorities raised a bill for Rs. 15,500/- showing 14,173 metered calls. Further it is alleged by the complainant/petitioner that the Telephone Authorities/Opposite Parties sent revised bills against Cycle No. 5/ 1990 Rs. 7,055/-, 7/1990 for Rs. 12,871/-, 9/- 1990 for Rs. 9,258/-, 11/1990 for Rs. 6,729/-, 1/ 1991 Nil, 3/1991 for Rs.l5,770/-5/1991 for Rs. 11,648/- and 7/1991 for Rs. 16,112/-THE complainant/petitioner challenged all those revised inflated bills on the ground that he has not been enjoying any STD facility in the said Telephone number and that the telephone used by him cannot exceed the free metered calls available within the range of rental charges for which periodical bills have been submitted. THE petitioner/complainant denied and disputed the liability of the inflated bills for Cycle Nos. 5/1990, 7/1990, 9/1990, 11/1990,1/1991, 3/1991, 5/1991, 7/1991 and 9/1991 and asserted that all these bills were absurd and also asserted that the telephone in question had been used in residential house and as such the incidence of local calls ranging from 200 to 300 per day as per revised bill was impossible and absurd.

THE complainant/petitioner gave several representations to review the position and requested to send correct bills by his letter dated 12.10.1991 and in reply to the said letter the telephone authority by its letter dated 19.3.1992 stated that the matter was under examination and their observation on the matter will be conveyed shortly, but instead of sending its report to the complainant/petitioner, the Opposite Parties/Telephone Authorities disconnected the telephone line of the complainant/ petitioner on 10.12.1991 without any notice. In the aforesaid premises, the complainant/petitioner prayed for restoration of the telephone line and also for appropriate reliefs. The Opposite Parties /Telephone Authorities filed written statement denying all material allegations and emphasized about the arbitration of the dispute between the parties as per provision of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and contended that the petitioner/complainant is not maintainable because the petitioner /complainant filed this case without availing the normal procedure of law for redressal of his grievances as per terms of the contractual agreement. The Opposite Parties also contended that the bills for the disputed Cycles Nos. 9/1990, 11/1990, 1/1991, 3/1991, 5/1991, were for Telephone No.358603 but not for Telephone No. 348603.

The Opposite Parties contended that the bills raised by them were correct and sought for direction upon the complainant/petitioner to pay the outstanding dues against the revised bills before restoration of the telephone line of the complainant/ petitioner and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition. DECISION

IT is admitted that the rental charges for the disputed cycles were duly been paid by the complainant/petitioner as per bill drawn on the basis of the rental charges by the Opposite Parties/ Telephone Authorities. Subsequently dispute arose for submitting the revised bill for those Cycle Nos. 5/1990, 7/1990, 9/1990,11/ 1990, 3/1991, 5/1991, 7/1991 and 9/1991 showing inflated amount in the said bills. No reason was furnished whatsoever by the Opposite Parties as to why the metered calls were not shown at the time of issuing the bills for rental charges only except in two Cycle Nos. 7/1990 and 7/1991 and how in subsequent revised bills, the Opposite Parties have shown so many metered calls and the source thereof. IT is not also understood to us that how the two telephones of a single subscriber can run at a time side by side. Therefore, the contention of the Opposite Parties that in the disputed cycles only the rental charges were shown against Telephone No.358603 and not for 348603 is absurd contention and not sustainable at all. The disconnection of the complainant''s Telephone No. 348603 without notice by the Opposite Parties is also illegal as per settled principle of law.

SO we award directing the Opposite Parties to restore Telephone No. 348603 within 7 days from the date of communication of this order and set aside the disputed revised bills for Cycle Nos. 5/1990, 7/1990, 9/1990, 11/1990, 3/ 1991,5/1991 and 9/1991 in view that the rentals charges for those cycles have already been paid. If however any rental charges remains unpaid against any of those cycles, the petitioner shall pay against issuance of a provisional bill for that particular cycle charging rental charges only, by the telephone authorities. We also direct the telephone authorities to observe the recording of the meter for the next subsequent 6 months in that particular telephone and on the basis of average recordings of the meter for the next 6 months, the disputed bills for the disputed cycles as aforesaid shall be settled. We are not inclined to refer the matter to the arbitration as per Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which is not mandatory for adjudication of a dispute raised before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and we get support of the said view from a decision reported in I (1992) CPJ 47 (NC). The complaint petition is disposed of in terms of above order. The parties will bear their respective cost. Complaint allowed.