PARSHOTTAM DASS vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 1.9.1997, passed by the District Forum-III in Complaint Case No. 363/97- entitled Shri Parshottam Dass v. M.T.N.L.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant was subscriber of Telephone No. 5412589, installed at his residence at E-365, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant received a bill for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 for an amount of Rs. 3,502/-, though, the telephone of the appellant had remained out of order for 5 weeks from 4.4.1994 to 7.5.1994. On repeated requests of the appellant, the Deputy General Manager of the respondent partly corrected the aforesaid bill by reducing the calls charged from 2,780 to 780 and the revised bill was duly paid by the appellant. However, the appellant still felt that the 780 calls charged in the disputed bill were on the excessive side and, therefore, again contacted the officials of the respondent for further adjustment on the basis of average calls reflected in the FNMR. But the appellant failed to elicit a positive response from the respondent/MTNL and was thus constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for the refund of the amount paid in excess by him and also to allow rebate in rent for 5 weeks, during the period his telephone was out of order. The stand of the respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that since the complainant had already been given adjustment of 2,000 calls, in the bill for the billing cycle April, 1994, confirmed by its letter dated 14.11.1994, the complainant had no case. It was further submitted by the MTNL that the complainant had already been given rental rebate for the period from 15.4.1994 to 30.4.1994 when the telephone remained out of order.

The learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the appellant with directions to the respondent to allow rental rebate to the complainant for one month from 4.4.1994 to 4.5.1994 and to issue revised bill for the billing period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 and charge for 400 calls only as against 2,780 calls originally billed for and also directed the refund or adjustment in future bills for the amount paid in excess by the appellant. The learned District Forum also granted a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- as well as Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation to the appellant.

THE appellant being aggrieved by the quantum and extent of relief granted to him vide impugned order has filed the present appeal before us. We have carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record as well as heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties.

THE first contention of the appellant in the present appeal was that the learned District Forum had ordered for the revision of the bill for the billing period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 on the basis of average calls as reflected in the FNMR for the period preceding and succeeding the period in dispute and had arrived at the average of 400 calls for the billing period of 2 months, i.e. 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994. In doing so, the learned District Forum had not taken into consideration the fact that during the said period the telephone had not been working properly from 4.4.1994 to 7.5.1994 and the learned District Forum had also given a finding to the effect that the telephone had remained non-functional from 4.4.1994 to 4.5.1994, i.e. for one month period, and as such if the said period is deducted from the billing period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994, the average calls for 3 weeks should have been directed to be billed on pro-rata basis for about 100 calls and not 400 calls as held by the District Forum. On going through the impugned order, as well as the record of the case, the said contention of the appellant appears to be valid. Since the learned District Forum has given a finding to the effect that the telephone of the appellant remained out of order during the period from 4.4.1994 to 4.5.1994, the said period, if deducted, from the billing period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 would come to about 4 weeks and not 3 weeks as alleged by the appellant. However, as per the meter reading shown in the FNMR, the average calls in respect of the telephone of the respondent come to about 200 calls per month and as such, as per the finding of the learned District Forum in the impugned order, if the bill for the billing period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 deserved to be revised on average basis, then in that case, the respondent/M.T.N.L. should have been directed to revise the impugned bill by charging for 200 calls only instead of 400 calls. The next contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that vide impugned order, the learned District Forum had allowed him rental rebate for a period of 1 month only, i.e. 4 weeks whereas, the telephone remained non-functional from 4.4.1994 to 7.5.1994 and as such the rental rebate should have been granted for 5 weeks instead of 4 weeks. We, however, are not inclined to agree with the said contention of the appellant on account of the fact that as per the finding given in the impugned order, the telephone remained out of order for the period of 4 weeks only, i.e. from 4.4.1994 to 4.5.1994 and as such, the learned District Forum has calculated the said period for rental rebate for 4 weeks correctly and no fault can be found with the said finding of the learned District Forum. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation granted to him as being inadequate. However, in view of the fact that substantial relief has already been granted to the appellant by way of revision of bill as well as rental rebate, therefore, the compensation granted is proportionate and justified in the circumstances.

BESIDES the abovementioned modifications sought in the impugned order, the appellant has also claimed refund of Rs. 10/- paid as registered notice fee charged by respondent/M.T.N.L. for sending a disconnection notice on account of non-payment of dues, whereas the entire bills had been paid up-to-date. The impugned order is silent on the said issue and further it is not mentioned anywhere by the appellant whether the said relief was sought for in the original complaint before the District Forum. In any case the amount claimed being insignificant, can be deemed to have been taken care of while granting compensation and costs to the appellant vide impugned order.

THEREFORE, in view of the above observations, we partly allow the appeal of the appellant to the extent that the bill, issued to the appellant for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994, be revised and the appellant be charged for 200 calls only. However, the remaining directions, issued by the learned District Forum vide impugned order, are upheld and the respondents are directed to comply with the same as well as the revised directions issued vide this order within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.