P.A.MARIANATHAN vs TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, PONDICHERRY

THIS is an appeal by the Complainant.

THE Complainant is a subscriber of a telephone. His case is that till August, 1992, the amount of his telephone bill varied from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1,000/-, that for the period from August to October, 1992, it was Rs. 3,195/-, that it came down to Rs. 1,611/- for the period from October to December, 1992, that again there was a sharp rise in respect of the period from December to February, 1993 for which the amount of bill was Rs. 5,076/-. It is after that bill that the dispute started between the parties. THE bill amount was not paid, the telephone was disconnected and the Complainant prayed the District Forum as follows :- (1) to direct to cancel the said bill; (2) to make out a correct bill on the basis of actual usage and consequently direct restoration of the telephone connection; and (3) to order compensation.

THE complaint was dismissed on 17.8.93 by the Forum against which order the present appeal is preferred. The case of the Appellant is that the Forum did not examine properly the complaint, that it got fettered by some misconceptions and acted on some surmises.

The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Department acted in a perfect gentleman like manner in this case and that there is no room for any complaint whatsoever.

LET us look closely at the facts. The bill for the period from December, 1992 to February, 1993 amounting to Rs. 5,076/- was issued on 1.3.93 and the due date was 16.3.93. The complainant issued a letter to the opposite party on 2.4.93, that is to say after the due date, stating that he had oral discussions with the officials of the Department on 30.3.93, in respect of the suspicion he nurtured regarding the misuse his line by the STD booth located in the vicinity of his company and asked for an enquiry and in the meantime prayed not to disconnect the telephone. A notice was issued by the Department on 30.3.93 to the effect that the amount should be paid on or before 6.4.93 failing which disconnection will take place. In that letter there is no indication whether the letter of the complainant dated 2.4.93 had been received by the Department and taken notice of or not. But the Department effected observation on the telephone of the complainant on two days namely on 8.4.93 and 9.4.93, that is to say after the notice of disconnection, and found that during those two days the total amount of calls was 94 which according to them justified the bill. But the result of this observation and the conclusion of the Department was not communicated to the complainant nor is there any statement assuring him that the proximate STD booth did not have any effect on the bill of the complainant. The Department proceeded to disconnect on 15.4.93 without any other formality. Even though the observation report was made available before the District Forum in which the telephone numbers of the persons outside Pondicherry called by the complainant were mentioned, the complainant did not come forward to state that he did not call those numbers during that period, nor did he dispute any of the entries in the observation report.

THE first question to be decided is whether there is any interference warranted in respect of the amount of the bill. THE telephone bill which is based on the data furnished by mechanical devices is normally to be considered correct unless there is reason to doubt its accuracy. THE only point raised by the complainant is the proximity of a STD booth. He did not explain how such a fact could influence his bill, nor has asked for any expert enquiry on the matter. It is unfortunate that the opposite party Department has not chosen to dispel in the appropriate manner the apprehension of the complainant that there could have been some malpractices by the proximate STD booth. Nevertheless in this case, from the own showing of the complainant the bill shooted up earlier upto Rs. 3,000/- odd. Secondly the observation report shows a fairly wide use of STD by the complainant himself. We do not find that this is a case in which interference in the amount of bill is warranted. However, we find that the disconnection ought not to have been taken place before the complainant has been given due knowledge of the observation report which he asked for. For that reason we think that no connection charge could be levied at the time of restoration. The question now remaining to be decided is whether the rent is payable for the period from the time of disconnection till fresh connection takes place. It is true that the telephone device was left in the residence of the complainant. But it is not denied that it was completely dead and of no use whatsoever to the complainant. The position is alike to the removal of the device altogether by the Department. One fails to see why the subscriber should be asked to pay the rent. If the expectation of the Department was to collect rent it should have taken a course in consonance with that expectation. It should have allowed the telephone device to serve some purpose to the subscriber. In fact one would expect in such a case the department to allow only the in-coming calls. This does not increase the liability of the subscriber by way of charges, this is also sufficient to prompt the subscriber to settle the arrears. Further, the Telephone Department should not loose sight of the dual purpose of a telephone, one for the concerned subscriber and another for the community of other subscribers. A telephone existing in isolation, is of no use; its utility increases with the number of subscribers. So when a disconnection takes place curtailing the in-coming calls as well, whilst the concerned subscriber is still in the subscriber''s list. Many other subscribers will call him only to find his telephone dead. So the act of total disconnection causes inconvenience to other subscribers which the Telephone Department should strive to avoid. At any rate, if rent is to be recovered during the period of disconnection the department should ensure that the telephone device serves some purpose to the subscriber. In this case, it was not so, and the rent is not justified.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The telephone of the complainant shall be restored upon the complainant paying the outstanding bill for Rs. 5,076/- and also the bill outstanding for the next period. But no charge shall be levied for restoring connection and no rent shall be levied for the period from the disconnection till restoration. No costs. Appeal partly allowed. __________________