K.A.RAMA Iyer vs ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TELEPHONE Revenue

THE complainant in O.P. 208/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad is the appellant. THE complainant is a consumer of telephone No. 661384 of Sreekrishna Puram Exchange. His grievance was he was supplied with Ext. P3 bill dated 11.2.1998 for an amount of Rs. 14,833/-. THE said amount is excessive and abnormal, he contacted SDOT, Ottappalam and attempted to verify the cause of the sudden spurt. He wrote to the opposite parties on 10.3.1998 on the excess metering and complaining about the excess bill. While the said complaint was pending according to him on 11.4.1998, he received a bill for Rs. 3,82,716/-. He asserts that he did not make any I.S.D. calls from the telephone neither has he any relatives in foreign countries. To his knowledge his telephone did not have any I.S.D. facility. THErefore he wanted the said disputed two bills Exts. P1 and P3 are quashed and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded for mental agony and harassment.

THE opposite party in their version sought to support the said two bills maintaining that on receiving the complaint on 23.5.1998 both the bills in dispute were referred to field unit for verification and report. THEy submitted report stating that there was no unauthorised tapping. THEy further maintained that noticing the sudden spurt they conducted investigation and reports were obtained which confirm that the calls were genuine. Since dynamic locking facilities was given to the complaint, he should have utilised the said facility and could have limited the calls. THE District Forum on a consideration of the rival contentions referred the matter for arbitration under 7(b) of the Indian Telegraphs Act with a further direction that the department has to initiate arbitration proceedings within a period of three months from the date of the order. Dissatisfied by the said direction the complainant has come up in appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted, that ever after it was installed on 13.3.1993, no bill was issued like Exts. P1 and P3. This itself would demonstrate that the calls for which the said bills are issued are not genuine calls. According to him though the complainant made oral complaint immediately on receipt of Ext. P3 and followed it up with a written complaint on 10.3.1998, no investigation has as required was even attempted by the opposite party neither have they produced any reliable materials to show that such investigation was conducted, no such report was intimated to the complainant also. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained, inasmuch as the opposite parties have already taken steps pursuant to the direction for appointing Arbitrator, the appeal is infructuous. It was urged with due regard to the scope of the enquiry involved it is a case in which the proper remedy is recourse to Section 7(b) of the Telegraph Act. Alternatively it was maintained, that on making proper investigation it was revealed that the calls are genuine calls and the complainant himself is conducting granite business.

What is to be noted is, that the District Forum, though has marked Exts. P1 to P13, as could be discerned from the Appendix to the order, no reference at all is seen made to any one of the same in the discussion. It does not reveal that the opposite parties have produced any material, whereas it is pointed out by the respondents Counsel that the additional replies filed by the opposite parties states that documents were produced alongwith them. The position that, in such matters the only remedy is under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act cannot be accepted particularly in the context of the decision in General Manager, Telecom v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, III (1997) CPJ 460=1997 (2) K.L.T. 699. Even if such a course is adopted neither can it oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even otherwise the question of arbitration can arise only after the Forum is satisfied on consideration of the material placed before it that points involved cannot be effectively dealt with by it. Here not even an attempt is made to go into the nature of the contention. As it is, the dispute is as to the genuiness of the calls for which Exts. P1 and P3 invoices were issued to the complainant. When it is admitted that there was a spurt at least for certain period, the question is whether the procedure as per the relevant rules have been observed and result obtained by way of report. Similar matter came for consideration before the National Commission in the decision in Telecom District Manager & Anr. v. Patel Shankar Lal, Kevalram, II (1996) CPJ 99 (NC)=1996 (2) C.P.R. 59. The said decision lays down, in such situation, the action to be taken would include steps : (a) Meter reading to be taken every fortnight; (b) identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt; and (c) in case of such sudden spurt being noticed, placing the telephone line on observation and putting responsible staff to the subscribers premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts.

This decision lays down in detail the procedure to be followed in such situation. There is not even proper allegation in the version, such procedure was followed. No report as to the same is seen produced or if produced adverted by the District Forum. The scope of enquiry in this case being as indicated above, at this stage we are not satisfied that this is a matter to have been referred in 7(b) of the Telegraph Act. As we have already indicated, at any rate since no attempt even was made to give any detail and in the context of the materials produced and also the law governing the matter to satisfy as to whether the Telegraph Department has followed the procedure required in such circumstances, referring the matter under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act cannot neither by held to be the proper way to dispose of the matter nor can the same be an answer to the problem sought to be agitated before it. When such is the situation we see no alternative other than to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the District Forum. As has already noted simply because that the opposite party claimed to have taken the steps towards implementation of the order that cannot in the circumstances, be taken as basis to hold that the appeal has become infructuous. This is particularly so as the appeal was filed soon after the pronouncement of the order and the appellant had obtained interim stay of the operation of the order. In view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the District Forum for adjudication and disposal. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum shall restore the complaint to file, give opportunity to both parties to produce materials in support of their respective contentions. After such production of the materials the District Forum will dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties will appear before the District Forum on 5.7.1999. In this appeal there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.