MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs GHEVAR CHAND SAMAL SONIGARA

THE State Commission of Maharashtra vide Order on 20th September, 1991 in Complaint No. 60/91 has permanently restrained the appellant from recovering a telephone bill amounting to Rs. 62,054/- from the respondent-complaint. In addition it granted to the respondent claimant Rs. 5,000/- as token compensation for illegal disconnection of the telephone of the respondent after he had filed the complaint before the State Commission and refund of Rs. 35/-. THE MTNL Bombay has come up in appeal against this Order of State Commission.

THE bill in dispute for Rs. 62,775/- was for the period from 1.7.1990 to 1.9.1990 and was issued on the 1st of October, 1990. THE MTNL have justified the bill for such a large amount in this particular case on the plea that the respondent subscriber was having the STD facility and that there is evidence of his having made a long distance call from Bombay during September, 1990. From the perusal of the record and from the examination of the facts during the hearing. It emerged that the crucial question to be determined is whether the respondent-telephone subscriber enjoyed STD facility during the period to which the disputed bill pertains viz. July - August, 1990 and if so how the STD facility came to be restored after it had been discontinued w.e.f. the 26th of February, 1987 at the request of the subscriber. Since the appellant could not explain this matter at the hearing, an opportunity was afforded to him to apprise this Commission of the investigation, if any, done by the appellant-MTNL and the question as to how the STD facility, which had become barred in February, 1987, had became operational without a request in writing from the subscriber and which is said to have led to the bill of a heavy amount having to be issued to the subscriber on 1.10.1990.

The appellant has submitted an additional report and submissions on the 4th of June, 1992. This has been taken on record. We have perused the same. We are afraid that the additional report submitted by the appellant is ambiguous and perfunctory on the question how the STD facility came to be restored and became operational after the said facility had been discontinued and with- drawn w.e.f. 26th of February, 1987. The additional report states "the fraudulent STD restoration has been done in collusion with one of the staff''. But the appellant is unable to identify the members of the telecom staff with whose collusion the barred STD facility was restored and made operational.

THE appellant claims to have investigated with the matter through its Vigilance Department but has not cared to submit the report of the Vigilance Department. For restoration of the STD facility, the charges have to be deposited by subscribers with the MTNL and the STD facility is installed or restored on the order of the competent authority. We cannot imagine how STD facility can be installed/restored without the sanction of competent authority and without proper record of telephones numbers having STD facility. If this is possible it would indicate a serious flaw in the system regulating the provision, barring and restoration of STD facilities giving scope for serious malpractices and loss of revenue to the telecom system. Again before the telephone was placed under multi-line observation in 1990. It could have been considered whether the subscriber was having a duly sanctioned STD facility. Further- more for exercising proper check on the due use of telephone facility, to our knowledge, the department has got full authority to inspect the telephone and the telephone installations within the residential premises. We are not impressed by the plea of the appellant that the subscribed and family members did not cooperate in their carrying out this inspection of telephone and telephone installation within the residential premises. Again it is on record that as a result of investigation, it came to the knowledge of the MTNL that subscribed was using a telephone belonging to some other party for a long period and that this was an unauthorised use of telephone. THE report is silent as to what action was taken for the unauthorised use of that telephone. In this appeal memorandum, the appellant has taken a plea that the respondent-subscribed had failed to give reply to MTNL''s letter dt. 25th of March, 1987 in which it was stated "that you (subscribed-Respondent) are having STD facility". In his written version dated 24th of December, 1991 the respondent has pointed out that the appellant''s letter of 25th of March, 1987 is in relation to his complaint about excess billing during the period 10.11.1986 to 10.01.1987 when he was having the STD facility. The STD facility having been withdrawn from the 26th of February, 1987, the only rational interpretation of the appellant''s letter dt. 25th March, 1987 is that during the disputed period of the bill viz. 10.11.1986 to 10.01.1987, the telephone was having STD facility. We, therefore cannot ignore the submission of the respondent that "the appellants are trying to mislead and confuse this Hon''ble Commission" (Para 25 of the written version of the 24th December of the respondent refers). The appellant was also unable to satisfactorily explain this point at the hearing. There is also no proper explanation regarding this matter in the additional report and submissions made by the appellant after the hearing.

IN the light of what we have stated above, we hold that the State Commission was competent to to into the validity of the bill dated 1.12.1990 for Rs. 62,775/- keeping in view that bill for such a large amount was not justified on the basis of the subscriber having a STD facility, that the respondent was fully entitled to have his grievance adjudicated upon by a Consumer Forum and it was not mandatory for him to invoke the provisions of Section 7B of the INdian Telegraph Act. We have repeatedly held that Section 7B of the INdian Telegraph Act docs not ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum''s. We therefore, uphold the findings of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the respondent. Before we part with this order, we would like to refer to item 11 of the additional report submitted made by the appellant on the 4th of June, 1992. The appellant has submitted that "that, however, in order to satisfy some curiousity as to some aspect of the matter, the Hon''ble Commission had directed the appellant to give a report of the investigation carried out by them in the matter". At the hearing, we were fully satisfied that the appellant had been unable to challenge the order of the State Commission and that the same was just and fair. Considering, however, the fact the public revenues are involved in this case and it is a matter of public knowledge that there are malpractices indulged in by the telephone subscribers in collusion with the income staff, we thought it prudent to give the appellant an opportunity to satisfy us that it had taken all possible steps to find out and establish if there was collusion and that the department was not being defrauded. Not only the appellant has failed to do so, but it has chosen to describe the direction contained in this Commission''s Order of 7th of May, 1992 as having been made "in order to satisfy some curiosity as to some aspect of the matter". This not only betrays lack of seriousness in investigating the complaints from the subscribers but also a total lack of understanding of the importance of the issue involved in this case. Appeal allowed.