PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD vs Santosh Kanhayalal Jain

THIS appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of the District Forum dated April 25,1996, quashing telephone bill dated July 1, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 / - covering a period of about one year from July 9,1992 to May 15, 1991 for total calls of Rs. 29070/ -. A direction was given to the Telephone Department to restore the telephone at the new address supplied by the complainant -Punjab Mandi Board. A sum of Rs. 5/000/ - as compensation was allowed to the complainant to be paid by the Telephone Department with the further direction that the aforesaid amount be recovered from the official concerned found to be guilty in handling the case.

TELEPHONE No. 58979 was used by Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer at his residence 37 -C, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Regular bills for the period March, 1990 to January 1991, then from January, 1991 to March, 1991 and thereafter from March, 1991 to April, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 972/ - Rs. 298 and Rs. 308/ - respectively were received and paid. The bill in dispute was issued on July 1,1991 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 / -, which was alleged to be highly excessive, illegal, due to wrong metering and most probably misuse of telephone by the officials of the Telephone Department by tampering the STD facility. It was asserted that the bill dated July 1,1991 covered the amount of the bills earlier submitted and paid as referred to above. On receipt of the disputed bill, the complainant lodged a written complaint vide letter dated August 13,1991 which was followed by reminders dated November 7,1991 and April 3,1992, but no action was taken by the Telephone Department on the complaints referred to above. It was asserted that the complainant did not use the telephone for international calls or STD calls. He had no relation in USA and other countries. The complainant wrote another letter on August 14,1991 to the Telephone Department to disconnect the telephone and to keep it in safe custody temporarily and the same could be restored on request subsequently. The Telephone Department disconnected the telephone in November, 1991 and thus was not entitled to claim rent for the period August, 1991 to November, 1991. Vide separate letter dated October 25,1990, the complainant called upon the Telephone Department to disconnect STD facility, which was not done by the Telephone Department. On these allegations, the complaint was filed for quashing the bill aforesaid and for restoration of the telephone at the new address. The opposite party contested the complaint by filing written reply. It was asserted that the telephone was disconnected on account of non -payment of bill dated July 1,1991 for a sum of Rs. 29,891 / - though subsequently the aforesaid amount was deposited. Generally, the allegations of the complainant were denied but there was no specific denial with respect to the three complaints lodged by the complainant in writing. The bill in dispute was alleged to be for calls made from the telephone in dispute. The meter was found to be correct. With respect to withdrawal of the STD facility, it was asserted that the complainant could lock the STD facility from the telephone instrument itself. No request was made for restoration of the telephone, which was disconnected on account of non -payment of the bill dated July 1,1991. If request is made, the matter could be examined by the General Manager, Telecom, Ludhiana for restoration. The complainant produced affidavit of Subhash Mahajan, Executive Engineer, which fully supports all the allegations levelled in the complaint. Copies of the three complaints made to the Telephone Department, reference of which was made in the complaint were produced alongwith the disputed bill. A separate affidavit of Baldev Singh. Executive Engineer of Pun jab Mandi Board was also produced in support of the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit of Shri R.K. Gupta, Sub -Divisional Engineer, Phones was produced to the effect that bill was issued on July 1,1991 and the telephone of the complainant was computerized and the complainant could lock STD/ISD facility himself. The telephone was disconnected on account of non -payment of the bill referred to above although the amount was deposited subsequently on October 22, 1992. If the telephone is not restored within six months from its disconnection, it stood permanently closed and could not be restored.

MR . D.C. Mittal, learned Counsel for the Telephone Department vehementaly argued that the judgment of the District Forum is based on conjectures. The records of the Telephone Department regarding telephone bills is destroyed after six months and no presumption against the Telephone Department could be raised for non - production of such records in this case. We find no merit in this contention, particularly, when promptly complaints were lodged with the Telephone Department regarding excessiveness and misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Telephone Department. As already stated above, in the written statement filed, it was not specifically denied about the written complaints filed by the complainant. Copies of these complaints were produced before the District Forum. First letter was written on August 30,1991 vide No. Const/EE/PH7102. In this letter details of three earlier bills issued and payments made, were given with the request that the disputed bill be over -hauled. The other complaint was filed on the following day, requesting the Telephone Department to disconnect temporarily the telephone for safe custody. The next letter was written on November 7,1991 giving reference to the earlier letter of August 13,1991 with the request to send revised computerized bill. Further letter No. Const/EE/PH/2231 dated April 3,1992 was issued giving reference of the previous two complaints and that the bill for Rs. 29,891/ - was excessive and probably due to excessive metering. List of telephones relating to the office was appended. Bills of previous months were also given. Original bill was sent back to the Telephone Department for revision. Another reminder was issued on June 10,1992, copy of which was also produced. In view of the fact that immediately on receipt of the bill the same was challenged by making written complaints, it was not expected of the Telephone Department to destroy the relevant records relating to the aforesaid bill, which in the present case was issued after about a year. It is not disputed that ordinarily, bills are submitted after two months. Transparency in the working of the Telephone Department, which is supposed to render service to the subscribers is vital. Otherwise, after a year when a huge bill is sent, the subscriber is left at the whims of the Telephone Department, unable to do anything, except lodging a report. Action of the employees of the Telephone Department in the facts of the present case to destroy the relevant records relating to the telephone of the subscriber is nothing but misconduct for which necessary directions are given by the District Forum and we confirm the same.

SINCE , it is the stand of the Telephone Department that the telephone was disconnected on account of non -payment of the bill referred to above, the appropriate relief which could be granted was restoration of the telephone without charging any rent for the intervening period. The complainant also requested for disconnection of the telephone and the Telephone Department took two months time to do so. It is not necessary to consider this aspect as the stand of the Telephone Department was that the telephone was disconnected on account of nonpayment of the bill and not as requested. The Telephone Department could charge rental in the case of disconnection for a period of six months as has been argued, cannot be accepted as the telephone was disconnected illegally as there was no justification for sending the inflated bill, which was being challenged on the ground of its misuse by the employees of the Telephone Department. Whatever material the complainant could lay hands, was supplied to the Telephone Department, which also contained an Annexure containing several calls made to USA and other towns, which according to the complainant were never made by the office concerned at whose residence, the telephone was installed. Such being the case, it was expected of the Telephone Department to hold an enquiry into the allegations of misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Telephone Department. No such action was taken by the Telephone Department. On the other hand, the empoyees of the Telephone Department in a haste destroyed the relevant records relating to the bill in dispute inspite of the fact that the written complaints had been filed. Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department argued that the present complaint was filed after a year and four months of the issue of the bill and the Telephone Department was not supposed to keep the record. This contention is devoid of merit. As briefly stated above, genuineness of the bill in dispute was challenged within a month of the issue of the bill by the Mandi Board by writing official letters to the Telephone Department.

THIS is a case where the complainant in writing called upon the Telephone Department to debar STD facility on the telephone. No action was taken by the Telephone Department on the request. Instead it has been argued that the complainant of his own could lock STD facility from its telephone. It may be so but that does not absorb the Telephone Department to withdraw STD facility from the Exchange on the telephone in dispute. There was clearly deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department in this respect. Non action of the Telephone Department in this respect is one of the factors to be taken into consideration when the allegations made were that the complainant did not use the telephone (ISD facility) for international calls and the same were misused by the employees of the Telephone Department. In view of the facts stated above, no liability can be fastened on the consumer on the basis of bill for such calls, which is for a period of about one year. The District Forum rightly quashed the bill.

FINDING no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/ -, which would be adjusted against the bills to be issued subsequently. Appeal dismissed with costs. -