S.D.O. TELEGRAPH/TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, KAITHAL vs AMITA SINGHANIA

THIS appeal filed by the S.D.O. Telegraph/ Telephone Exchange, Kaithal against the order dated 25th of April, 1994 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kaithal has to be allowed on the short ground that it is squarely covered by the law laid down by the National Commission in case ''Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan'', I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC).

IN the present case the complainant had challenged the correctness of the telephone bills of September 1992 for Rs. 3980/- and February 1993 (actually November, 1992) of Rs. 2162/- alleging that the same were excessive. It was also alleged that in the second bill a sum of Rs. 500/- has also been added as extension charges even though there was no extension on the complainant''s Telephone No. 3608. The opposite party-telephone department in the very first instance stated, that on scrutiny it had transpired that extension charges of Rs. 500/- were to be charged from the previous holder of the telephone and not from the complainant and the said amount is to be adjusted in the bill for telephone in future. So far as remaining two bills were concerned, it has stated that the same were charged on actual consumption. However the learned District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that "ends of justice would be met if rebate of 1500 calls in bills for September, 1992 and 500 calls in bill of November, 1992 is allowed". This was done obviously by taking into account the fortnightly reading of the bills of other months. Since there was S.T.D. facility on the telephone and there could be fluctuation in the consumption also, the question of converting the actual consumption bill on the basis of some average consumption was not a correct approach. Moreover, in the latest majority view the National Commission has reiterated its consistent stand in I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC), Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan in the following terms:- "We have repeatedly held that the Consumer Redressal Forums will not be legally justified in taking over the function of estimating by application of the rule of thumb the precise number of calls made unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by some unauthorised person in collusion with the employees of the department, particularly in cases where a subscriber has the S.T.D facility - see District Manager, Telephones v. Niti Saran, I (1991) CPJ 48, Revision Petition No. 67 of 1990. Again in Telecom District Manager v. M.S. Mukherjee, Revision Petition No. III of 1990 we held that it was not legally permissible to take the average number of calls in the previous bills for a given period as the basis of ascertaining what should be fixed as the reasonable number of chargeable calls in the billing period. IN the present case there is neither direct nor even circumstantial evidence to show that there was probability of such misuse of the telephone."

Consequently, in view of the above observations of the National Commission, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed without costs.