S.B. SINGH GURJAR vs TELECOMMUNICATION DEPTT, JODHPUR

WE have heard the parties Counsel at length.

IN this case the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a subscriber of Telephone No. 38704, though he had not applied for STD and ISD connection yet these facilities were provided and he received unwanted bills for STD and ISD calls. It is also admitted according to the record of the Revenue Branch of the respondent that the petitioner-complainant had no STD/ISD facility. The complainant had been paying telephone bills regularly till 1.3.1996. He received a telephone bill dated 1.3.1996 for Rs. 54,550/-. The complainant-petitioner moved an application to the Accounts Officer, Jodhpur of the respondent mentioning that no STD facility available on his telephone and wrong bill had been sent to him. A provisional bill for Rs. 669/- was issued to the complainant-petitioner which was paid by the complainant-petitioner. Again on 1.5.1996, another bill for Rs. 2,15,186/- was sent to the complainant petitioner. After complaining a provisional bill of Rs. 745/- was sent to him by the respondent which was also paid by the complainant-petitioner. No action was taken immediately as is evident from the readings mentioned in the order of the District Forum and it appears that inquiry was held around May, 1996. The respondent failed to disconnect the STD connection which according to the petitioner might have been used by strangers. It is apparent that there are two types of deficiencies. Firstly, if any STD/ISD facility was provided with this telephone without applying, there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The fact that three telephone bearing Nos. 7427467 at Delhi, 255300 at Meerut and the third 4310191 at Bombay were contacted on this phone would not be sufficient to say that the complainant was liable to pay the entire amount. The complainant had shown some documents indicating that he had booked calls on these STD numbers and he had filed his statement indicating that on certain dates he had himself booked STD indicating Telephone No. 7427467. The entire conduct of the officials of the respondent Department had not been taken into consideration by the State Commission. When a subscriber had not applied for STD connection and it is established on the records of the Department also then the respondent should not have allowed to instal these kinds of facility and could have claimed any amount in respect of STD/IST calls except those booked by him. The respondent could not be allowed to ignore their pleadings in view of the two facts that the complainant had not applied for it and it is so recorded in their record and he has mentioned in his letter dated 12.3.1996 that he had no STD connection which was not specifically denied as per written version of the respondent taken on record from the Counsel for the respondent. As such there was no justification to charge any amount of the aforesaid STD/ISD calls.

Insofar as Section 70 of the Contract Act is concerned, the complainant/respondent could not be held liable except for only those calls which have been admittedly booked or made by him to his relations. He could not be expected to pay for calls which have not been made by him and made by the strangers. In the present case, it is evident that some officials of the respondent have not simply misused the telephone of the petitioner, connived in illegal STD and ISD connection and the department also continued to allow the misuse of his telephone even after complaint made on 12.3.1996 leading to issuance of provisional bill. As regards inquiry by the telephone department firstly that report had not been placed before Consumer Fora; secondly, it is not alleged that the petitioner had some relations at the end of all other contacted phones like the three mentioned hereinabove to fasten any liability on the petitioner.

IN view of the aforementioned reasons, we feel that the order neither of the District Forum nor of the State Commission could be sustained on account of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner firstly in connecting STD and ISD connection not applied for and secondly for not acting in time to disconnect these facilities immediately when specific complaint was made on 12.3.1996. The petitioner is accordingly liable to pay only provisional bills and bills for the above calls made to the above mentioned three telephone numbers. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. Parties are left to bear own cost. R.P. allowed.