SAWHNEY BROTHERS vs ALITALIA

DIVISIONAL Telephone Engineer and two other officers of the Department have filed the appeal against order dated 22nd July, 1992 of District Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 17/91. By this order, the District Forum directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - by way of compensation for the damage caused by disconnection of the complainant''s telephone and further ordered to adjust it towards the dues payable by the applicant.

INSPITE of notice sent to them long ago, no one has appeared for either party before the Commission. Since the appeal is an old one relating to 1992 we have looked into it ourselves. The case of the complainant who is a businessman was that his telephone bills relating to Phone No. 2321 (later changed to 2581) were usually of small amount for local charges and that the bill relating to the period from 1.3.1990 to 30.4.1990 was for Rs. 8,370/ - (local call charges Rs. 8,170/ -). On objections, the opposite party gave a provisional bill for Rs. 5,102/ -. The bill for the months of May -June, 1990 was also of excessive amount in which local calls were charged at Rs. 5,268/ -. The maintenance of the Telephone Exchange was poor and the metering device was defective. Since the phone was disconnected on the basis of excessive bills, the complainant was entitled to a claim of Rs. 10.000/ - as damages.

THE present appellants filed an objection in which it was said that the telephone of the complainant was. disconnected because he had failed to pay the amount of Rs. 8,170/ - and Rs. 5,268/ -. They filed the Subscriber Card of the complainant alongwith the affidavit of Bansh Narain Rai.

ON consideration of the matter, the District Forum feld that the two bills were for excessive amounts because the pattern of calling reflected by the Subscriber Card indicated that the local calls made by the complainant were low and the bills generally were of about Rs. 250/ -. The District Forum also took into consideration the fact that the appellants themselves gave rebate to the complainant in respect of local calls which showed that the metering equipment was defective. The Forum felt that disconnecting the telephone of the complainant on the basis of wrong bills amounted to deficiency in service, awarded Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation. The District Forum also directed the appellants to revise the disputed bills in the light of the observations made in its order. The appeal was filed with delay along with an application to condone it. In the memorandum of appeal, it has been said that the two disputed bills had been sent to the complainant on the basis of the meter reading and that any dispute in that regard should have been raised in arbitration proceedings under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It was said that award of compensation was contrary to the provisions of Telegraph Act to the effect that if any injury was occasioned to a subscriber on account of fault in meter, no compensation will be payable. No specific provision has been mentioned in this regard.

THE decision of the District Forum that the meter of the complainant''s telephone was defective as the appellants had themselves granted rebate to the complainant in respect of local calls is based on relevant consideration. Once if found that the metering equipment was defective it was open to the District Forum to set aside the erroneous bill issued on its basis. The District Forum has thus rightly held in this case that erroneous bills were given by the appellant to the complainant. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act which does not contain any specific bar for entertaining a dispute of this nature by any other duly constituted Forum. As such, it can not be said that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

DISCONNECTING a subscriber''s telephone on the basis of wrong bills amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Deptt. towards the subscriber which entitles a subscriber to claim compensation. The award of Rs. l,000/ - as compensation by the District Forum does not appear to be unreasonable in circumstances of the case. No specific provision of the Telegraph Act against award of compensation has been pointed out in the memorandum of appeal. The direction for correcting the bills in light of the observations made in the order of District Forum can also not be faulted in the present case. Once the complainant had been given rebate in local charges which were shown as Rs. 5/268/ - and were reduced to Rs. 5,802/ -, it is clear that bills were based upon faulty metering equipment. The pattern of calling, disclosed by the Subscriber Card indicated that the local charges for the period from 1.1.1990 to 28.2.1990 were Rs. 250/ -. No special reason (other than the faulty metering equipment) for spurt in the local calls in the disputed bills has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant -Deptt. to justify the excessive bill.

IN the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it.

LETA copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.