MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs U.K.BAGRODIA

THIS is an appeal against order dated 5.2.1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 965/1995 entitled Shri U.K. Bagrodia v. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & Anr.

BRIEFLY stated, the case of the respondent before the District Forum was that he had received a telephone bill for the billing cycle 16.11.1994 in respect of his telephone No. 7511531, installed at his premises bearing No. 63, G.B. Road, Delhi. The said bill for Rs. 17,313/- was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the same was excessive in view of the fact that the average billing for the preceding year had never exceeded Rs. 1,200/-. As such the respondent had prayed for the refund of the amount after deducting Rs. 1,200/- together with interest @ 18%, as well as compensation and costs. In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, it was stated on behalf of the appellant, that it had received the representation of the respondent, in respect of his telephone bill in question, which was duly investigated and after extensive investigation of line apparatus, indoor and outdoor plant nothing unusual or abnormal was found which could indicate excess metering. Furthermore, the telephone in question was kept under observation during the period 5.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 and it was found that the respondent was making STD calls. Accordingly the respondent had been intimated that his representation was without basis and he was liable to make the payment of the disputed bill dated 16.11.1994. Furthermore the telephone in question had been provided with dynamic STD locking facility and the subscriber alone knew the secret code, therefore, there was no possibility of misuse of the telephone in question by any outside agency.

However, the learned District Forum on basis of the material on record, allowed the complaint, with directions to the appellant to revise the disputed bill as directed and adjust the amount to be refunded, in the future bills. The learned District Forum also awarded 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 placed on record, as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The controversy involved in the present appeal is short. On the one hand it is contended on behalf of the respondent/consumer that the bill received by him was excessive and incorrect, in view of the average billing of preceding year, which had never exceeded Rs. 1,200/-. Whereas the thrust of the appellant''s argument was that the representation received from the respondent regarding excess billing had been duly investigated and after extensive investigation nothing abnormal had been noticed, in order to lead to a conclusion that the calls recorded were incorrect. Furthermore the telephone in question had been kept under observation for the period 5.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 during which period the respondent was found to be making STD calls. This fact together with the fact that the respondent was also enjoying dynamic STD locking facility, whereby the secret code was known only to the subscriber, the possibility of misuse by an outside agency was totally negated. We are inclined to accept the said contention of the appellant in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in cases of alleged excess billings. In one such case entitled Telecom District Engineer, Dharamshala v. Pran Nath Mahajan, reported as I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC)=1986-95 Consumer 810 (NS), the Hon''ble National Commission had after discussing threadbare, the modalities of deciding cases of excess metering came to the conclusion : "It is a matter of public knowledge that STD facility has often been misutilised on a large scale by third parties in collusion with P&T staff. But unless there is at least circumstantial evidence to probabilise such collusion having taken place in a particular case, we cannot doubt the correctness of bills merely on the basis of suspicion. We have repeatedly held that the Consumer Redressal Forums will not be legally justified in taking over the function of estimating by application of the rule of thumb the precise number of calls made unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by some unauthorized person in collusion with the employees of the Department particularly in cases where a subscriber has the STD facility."

(Emphasis supplied)

IN the instant case also merely because the calls recorded for a particular period were more than the average calls did not entitle the respondent/consumer to claim that the bill was incorrect on account of either defect in the metering equipment or misuse in collusion with appellant''s staff. Furthermore, the Hon''ble National Commission has held in the case of the District Manager Telephone & Ors. v. Niti Saran, reported as I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC)=1986-95 Consumer 793 (NS), that in the case where the subscriber had STD facility, there was every possibility of large variation in the calling pattern for various conceivable reasons. It was an admitted fact on the part of the respondent that he had been using the STD facility, and also had dynamic STD locking facility. IN his letter dated 20.5.1997, addressed to the District Forum, the respondent had also admitted the fact that he did not keep the STD facility locked. Thus, possibility of misuse , if any, at the premises of the respondent also could not be ruled out. As such the finding of the learned District Forum, that calls recorded in the impugned bill were incorrect and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, was not justified. Nor was the direction to revise the bill in dispute, on the basis of average billing for the preceding period, appropriate, as the Hon''ble National Commission has, in catena of decisions frowned upon the practice of District Forums, in directing revised bills to be prepared on an average basis especially where STD facility is provided in the telephone in question. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in such cases, we are unable to uphold the impugned order of the learned District Forum and the same is, therefore, set aside. In consequence the present appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost. The present appeal filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.