KRISHAN KUMAR vs GENERAL MANAGER, M.T.N.L.

THIS appeal is against the order of District Forum No. 1 dated 22.1.92. In the grounds of appeal the appellant has referred to the excessive billing of Rs. 2,100/- in respect of his Telephone No. 7116921 for the period 16.6.89 to 15.8.89 installed at his residence BM-155, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. His contention is that the billing is in excess of the calls made by him. He has further alleged that despite intimating to the M.T.N.L. that he did not want the S.T.D. facility, the M.T.N.L. for reasons best known to them did not disconnect the S.T.D facility for a sufficiently longtime. He has therefore, stated that the excess bill is primarily due to the misuse on the part of the M.T.N.L. According to him the bill of Rs. 2,100/- for the billing period 16.11.90 to 15.2.91 is exorbitant and unjustified.

THE District Forum had examined the bills/ calls annexed with the complaint and it was found that during the first 14th months there were no call charges at this telephone. THE first bill was for the period of 15.2.89 to 15.4.89 for Rs. 216/- only. It was only from the middle of June that the telephone came in for regular use and except in patches the number of calls billed were more than the average during the past. The main point stressed by the appellant is that he had intimated M.T.N.L. that he did not require the S.T.D. facility and that he was not using it and as such the same should have been disconnected, immediately after the request was made. As such the excess billing made by M.T.N.L. in not justified. He has also stressed the point that in view of the excess billing it is a fit case to review the matter as it is a lapse on the part of the M.T.N.L. who were in the know of the availability of S.T.D. facility and who alone should have taken early action to disconnect the same. He has cited his two letters dated 26.2.83 and 3.3.83 which were received by M.T.N.L. It was therefore, obligatory on the part of M.T.N.L. to have acted on the advice given by him, and the appellant could not be called upon to make payment of the excess bill of Rs. 2,100/-.

The respondent have however, disputed the contention of the appellant on the ground that the S.T.D. facility carries a responsibility on the subscriber since it is not merely the subscriber who uses it anybody-else living or visiting his house could also use it. In this case the subscriber continued to utilise the S.T.D. facility and since this was used by the subscriber it has to be paid for by the subscriber. The amount of Rs. 2,100/- was therefore, billed towards the use of S.T.D. facility and tie appellant is liable to pay the same.

WE have considered the view points mentioned by the appellant as well as the respondent. While it can not be denied that the appellant had intimated the M.T.N.L. about the disconnection of S.T.D. facility and that for reasons best known to M.T.N.L. they did not act upon. However, the corresponding liability on the part of the appellant can not be over-looked particularly, because we knew that S.T.D. facility could be misused. Infact it is not possible to keep a watchful eye in each person living in the house. The view taken by the District Forum that it is not possible to hold clearly that there has been no misuse of the S.T.D. facility by the appellant and as such he is liable to pay bill raised by M.T.N.L. can not be negated merely on the plea that M.T.N.L. did not act on the disconnection application and that there was a delay on their part. We therefore are of the view that once the subscriber knows that he has a S.T.D. facility, it is his responsibility to ensure that this facility is not misused, even if it is alleged to have been at the instance of M.T.N.L. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission in the revision petition No. 44/90 decided on 8.11.1990 which reads as under : - In the matter of "Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Limited reported as II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC)=1991 Consumer Cases." Wherein at page 56 in para 4 the National Commission has observed that it is not open to base a finding that the telephone bills have been inflated merely on the basis of suspicion. It further stated that the Redressal Forum must not go by subjective impression about the reasonableness or otherwise of a bill which is based on readings from Mechanical equipment. Further in Revision Petition No. 167/90 in the matter of Disctrict Manager, Telecom v. Niti Sarin 1991 Consumer Cases page 10 and page 11 it is observed that in case of S.T.D. facility in phones, large variations in calling pattern is possible and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum will not be legally justified in taking over a function of estimating by application of rule of thumb the precise number of calls made. Therefore, in a particular period of time unless there is adequate evidence which may show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of particular telephone by the employee of the department there is every possibility of large variation in calling pattern for various conceivable reasons.

IN view of the forgoing and taking into account the facts on record we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.