Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs M.R. CHHEDA

THIS is an appeal against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bombay, by which it quashed the Telephone bills amounting to Rs. 1,71,980/- and directed the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short the Nigam) to prepare fresh bills for the period covered by the aforesaid bills in consultation with the complainant. It was further ordered that the telephone connection Nos. 6858493 (it should be 6058493) and 8557101 of the complainant be reconnected within a month from the receipt of the order. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The Nigam has come up in appeal against the order.

THE facts relating to this appeal are that the complainant No. 1 Shri Mahendra Ratanshi Chheda is having a photo-studio at Bombay under the name of M/s. Jayendra Focus Art (complainant No. 2) at Bombay. A new telephone connection bearing No. 665493 was installed pursuant to the order dated 5th March, 1978. THE telephone had STD facility. On 8th September, 1978 the complainant wrote a letter to the Nigam requesting to disconnect the STD facility from his telephone. Vide letter dated 6th October, 1978 the Nigam informed the complainant that the STD facility in respect of the said telephone had been withdrawn. On 28th January, 1989, the number of the telephone in question was changed from 665493 to No. 6085493. However, the telephone bills used to be sent under the Old No. 665493 till 21.8.1989. According to the complainant his telephone bills earlier never exceeded the amount of Rs. 1,000/- with an average of Rs. 600/-in a billing period. It may be mentioned here that the bill dated 21st August, 1989, for the period 1.6.89 to 1.8.89, was for Rs. 576/- including trunk call charges of Rs. 162/-. Immediately after receipt of the said bill sometime in September, 1989 some officer of the Accounts Department of Malad Telephone Exchange of the Nigam telephoned the complainant and asked him to deposit the bills. A representative of the complainants-respondents went to the office of the Nigam and then he was handed over two bills dated 15.6.1989 for the period 18.3.89 to 18.5.89 for Rs. 22,371/-and a bill dated 15.8.89 for the period 18.5.89 to 18.7.89 for a sum of Rs. 36,350/-. THE complainant wrote a letter dated 16th September, 1989 addressed to the Accounts Department of the Nigam alleging that the bills were abnormal and exorbitant since there was no STD facility on the telephone. It is further the case of the complainant that before they could recover from the shock of the a foresaid two abnormal retrospective bills, they were served with another bill dated 1.10.1989, for the period 15.7.89 to 18.9.89 for an incredible amount of Rs. 1,13,233/-. THE complainant again wrote to the Accounts Officer to which they were informed that their complaint dated 16.9.89 had already been forwarded to the Divisional Engineer for investigation. THE Divisional Engineer vide letter dated 6.11.89 gave a mechanical reply stating that "it is clear that you (respondent) have been using the STD very frequently and there is no abnormal metering". In the meantime, the telephone of the complainant was disconnected in September, 1989 for non-payment of the bills. Another telephone of the complainant was also disconnected for the non-payment of bills. The Opposite Party, the Nigam contested the complaint. It will be better to give the narration of the Nigam from the memorandum of Appeal. According to it, the telephone bearing No. 665493 was working with STD facility and hence, the new No. 6058493 was also provided with STD facility on 28th January, 1989. It appears that the complainant had applied for restoration of the STD facility and accordingly as per the records, the STD facility was functioning from the beginning. On account of the allotment of the new number to the complainant, the complainant''s previous telephone No. 665493 was allotted to one Suit. Durga Ramesh Kalia. Anyhow, the name of the said Smt. Durga Ramesh Kalia was not fed to the Computer Billing Section and therefore, the bills dated 21st April, 1989, 26th June, 1989 and 26th August, 1989, for Rs. 290/-, Rs. 290/- and Rs, 576/- were issued in the name of the complainants but the meter readings of the said telephone and the amount calculated on the basis of the metered calls were of the Old Telephone No. 665493 later on allotted to Smt. Durga Kalia and hence the said bills were cancelled . The Nigam also tried to explain how this mistake has happened but it is not necessary to dilate upon it. It is further the case of the Nigam that the initial bill in respect of the complainant''s telephone No. 6058493 was bill dated 15th April, 1989 for the billing period from 18th January, 1989 to 18th March, 1989 that is to say from 28th Junuary, 1989 to 18th March, 1989 was for Rs. 11,017/- (metered calls 10,060). Subsequent bills were also tried to be justified on the ground that those were according to the metered calls. Thus, the Nigam tried to justify the issuing of the bills as well as the disconnection of the telephones of the complainants.

The Nigam placed heavy reliance on their record of metered calls which was produced before the State Commission. The State Commission perused the said record and after a detailed scrutiny came to the conclusion that the said record made a very interesting reading particularly in respect of item No. 0272378531. It showed that many calls were made to that number within very short intervals of few minutes in a single day. The same thing happened on the next day and soon. The State Commission further came to the conclusion that even if it is assumed that the said calls were made from telephone No. 6058493 those calls cannot be attributed to the complainant since he had requested the Nigam to disconnect the STD facility in 1978 and his request was granted in the same year after about a month and so this cannot be attributed to the complainant.

IT is further to be noted that from 1978 till the telephone number was changed there was no spurting of calls in the telephone of the complainant. IT is also clear from the records that he had been booking his trunk calls for out station calls. If the complainant knew that his telephone had STD facility, he would not have booked trunk calls for out station. It is not clear how and why STD facility was continued on the new telephone No. 6058493. The Nigam had tried to explain that it appears that the complainant has applied for the restoration of the STD facility on the old number and therefore, the new number was provided with STD facility. To prove that assertion, the Nigam has not produced any application made by the complainant for the restoration of the STD facility. The Nigam has also not produced any order passed on such application nor the subscriber''s record card has been produced to show that when the STD facility was provided and under which order. We have perused the records and fully agree with the finding arrived at by the State Commission that the STD calls can not be attributed to the complainants. The Commission has given detailed reasons for arriving at that finding. We do not find any infirmity in the said order.

IT has been argued that the State Commission has not clarified in the order that how the bills covering the disputed period are to be corrected and how to prepare fresh bills. The order is quite clear. The STD calls made from telephone No. 6058493 have to be excluded while revising the bills of the complainants. From the print-out it will not be difficult to find out outstation STD calls. However, we are of the opinion that the direction of the State Commission that "the bills should be prepared afresh after consultation with the complainant" cannot be upheld in toto. The Nigam has to prepare fresh bills according to the direction of the State Commission and for that purpose consultation with the complainant is not necessary. Therefore, the direction is modified to the extent that the words "in consultation with the complainant" shall stand deleted. It will be open to the complainant to challenge the fresh bills if he finds that those bills were not prepared correctly. Except for the above noted modification in the direction of the State Commission, we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the present appeal with costs which we assess at Rs. 3,000/-. Appeal dismissed