MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs K.B. MUKHERJEE

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'') against the order dated 31.7.1997 passed by District Forum (South) in complaint Case No. 3623/1994 entitled Shri K.B. Mukherjee v. M.T.N.L. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondent late Sh. K.B. Mukherjee and found the appellant MTNL (O.P. before District Forum) deficient in service. THE learned District Forum quashed the telephone bill for the period 1.3.1.1994 to 1.9.1994 raised by the appellant and ordered for the revision of the bill and also for the restoration of telephone line besides the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE facts of the case in brief are that complainant Sh. K.B. Mukherjee (respondent in the present appeal) was the subscriber of telephone No. 6415532 installed at his residence in June 1988. He received the bill of Rs. 3563/- for the period 16.12.1992 to 15.12.1993; subseqently the respondent received exorbitant bills for the various billing cycles of two months. He received a bill of Rs. 13,211/- for the period 16.12.1993 to 15.2.1994. THE respondent approached the Accounts Officer of the appellant for details of the STD calls but he was asked to deposit the bill pending clarification. Subsequently another bill of Rs. 13,057/- was received in May, 1994, which was also deposited by the respondent under protest. In the meanwhile he continued approaching the appellant MTNL for the correction of the bills. He also made a complaint to the Minister of Communication alleging the possibility of his phone being tampered with or misused by the appellant''s staff. However, the appellant informed the respondent that no details of STD calls can be furnished as the Exchange was not electronic. Another bill of Rs. 10,332/- was received for the period April to June, 1994. THE appellant also refused to change the level of the telephone No. 6415322 of the respondent to stop the misuse by the departmental staff. THErefore, the respondent requested the SDO concerned to disconnect the STD facility and the same was disconnected from 28.7.1994. Even after the disconnection of the STD facility, the respondent received a bill of Rs. 47,041/- for the period 16.6.1994 to 15.8.1994. THE respondent again brought to the notice of the appellant this exorbitant bill, which was raised even after the disconnection of STD facility. Unable to get any relief from the appellant, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. The learned District Forum by the impugned order found the appellant MTNL deficient in quality of service and ordered for the revision of the bills on the basis of highest number of calls made in a billing-cycle during the corresponding year.

Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Commission mainly on the ground that the District Forum has erred in reading the FNMR filed before the District Forum and the impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of suspicion.

WE have heard both the paties at length and have also carefully perused the record of the District Forum. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Forum has failed to consider the fact that the STD facility was withdrawn from 28.7.1994 and that from the FNMR it is clear that 3306 calls were recorded for the period 15.7.1994 to 31.7.1994 i.e., prior to the withdrawal of the STD facility and only 68 calls were recorded for the period 1.8.1994 to 14.8.1994. It has also been argued that it is on the account of the wrong reading of the FNMR that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order that there was deficiency in service as even after disconnection of the STD facility 3306 calls were recorded. It has further been argued that the telephone of the respondent was kept under observation from 21.7.1994 to 25.7.1994 and during the said period 317 calls were made at telephone No. 021-2645590. It has also been argued that respondent was a whole-time Director of a Limited Company and was using the STD facility and the bills raised were according to the calls recorded and there was no deficiency in service. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that if 3306 calls are made one has to use the telephone for 11 hours daily continuously for a fortnight, which is humanly impossible. It has further been argued that even after the disconnection of the STD facility the number of calls as per meter reading was 3306, which means 220 local calls per day. It has further been argued that there was misuse of telephone on the part of the appellant''s staff and the appellant was negligent in checking the misuse in spite of several requests and the representation of the respondent and the respondent has suffered on this count causing a lot of embarrassment, inconvenience and mental agony to him.

WE have carefully gone through the impugned order and we have found no infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for any interference by this Commission. The appellant had raised the bill of 3306 calls, which is not humanly possible especially when the STD facility was withdrawn. It is on account of this reason that the learned District Forum found the appellant deficient in service as no reasonable explanation has been given for this abnormal recording of the calls. It is also on this count that the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that either the telephone was being misused or the recording by the meter was erratic. From a perusal of the record we have found that the appellant has filed a copy of the FNMR for the relevant period. However, there are cuttings and overwriting in the copy. The appellant was asked to produce the original FNMR so as to verify the correctness of the FNMR but the appellant failed to do so, under these circumstances the authenticity of the FNMR becomes doubtful. The appellant has mainly relied on FNMR which has become doubtful; hence no reliance can be placed on the FNMR filed by the appellant. The learned District Forum has only ordered for the revision of the bills on the basis of the highest number of calls made in a billing-cycle during the correspondent year, which appears justified in the circumstances of the case. The appellant could not point out any other infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for any interference, hence the appeal is liable to dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own cost. The present appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.