MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs ISHWAR CHAND GUPTA

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1094/1996-entitled Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Another.

THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the respondent was subscriber of telephone No. 2523530 and was receiving bills not exceeding Rs. 355/- in respect of the said telephone. However, the respondent received a highly excessive bill dated 1.12.1992 for Rs. 94,349/- for the period 16.9.1992 to 15.11.1992. Accordingly, the respondent represented to the appellant and requested the appellant to take the telephone in safe custody and also requested for the supply of details of the calls. However, despite repeated requests and reminders no action was taken by the appellant on the said representation whereas on the other hand the telephone of the complainant was disconnected for non-payment of bills. As such the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to restrain from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,01,551/- demanded vide letter dated 12.7.1996 and to direct the appellant to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment undergone by him. The stand of the appellant before District Forum was that the telephone in question was provided with dynamic STD control facility and that the bill dated 1.12.1992 for Rs. 94,349/- and bill dated 1.2.1993 for Rs. 1,068/- was correct and issued on the basis of actual calls recorded. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant in its reply/written version filed before District Forum that on the representation of the respondent the telephone of the respondent had been kept under observation and 80628 calls had been recorded during the period, which included national and international calls and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part.

The learned District Forum however, allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to revise the bills dated 1.12.1992, and 1.2.1993, as per directions contained in the impugned order and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The case of the appellant is built on the premise that the telephone in question was having dynamic STD control facility and, therefore, there was no occasion for any misuse of the line. Furthermore after due investigation, the telephone in question was also kept under observation during the period 31.10.1992 to 3.11.1992 and during the said period a number of STD and ISD calls were recorded in the meter which goes to prove that the disputed bills dated 1.12.1992 and 1.2.1993 were correct and justified and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. It has however been admitted by the appellant during the course of arguments and in the amended appeal that the dynamic STD control facility was made available in the Exchange to which the telephone of the respondent is connected in the year 1998, therefore, since the bills in question pertain to the year 1992-93 the very basis of the appellant''s contention is nullified that the telephone line of the respondent could not be misused as the dynamic STD control facility was available in the telephone in question. Furthermore, the second leg of appellant''s argument is that the telephone in question was kept under observation and numbers of STD/ISD calls have been recorded therein during the said period. However, details of calls recorded during the period of observation (placed on record) itself reveals that national and international calls were being made on a particular day from morning till evening continuously and at such short intervals that it is not possible for so many calls to be made from a private telephone. In fact the said record proves the contention of the respondent that his telephone was being misused from outside. The apprehension of the respondent appears to be correct that since all the calls recorded relate to neighbouring Mohammedan countries and the area in which the phone is installed is basically a Muslim dominated area, the misuser of his phone is apparent, as he has no relatives or friends in the said countries. In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for any interference in the same in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction.

EVEN otherwise, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is barred by limitation, as the order is dated 30.3.1999 and certified copy of the same is admitted to have been received by the appellant on 12.4.1999 whereas the present appeal has been filed only on 16.6.1999 i.e., much beyond the period of limitation of 30 days as prescribed in terms of provision of Section 15 of the Act. The condonation of delay application accompanying the appeal also does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as mere procedural delay does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merit and also being barred by limitation is not maintainable and as such is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. The above mentioned appeal filed by the appellants stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.