S.D.O./AEPO, TELEGRAPH TELEPHONE vs SUDHIR KUMAR MEHTA

THE Department of Tele-communication appeals against the order of the District Forum, Kaithal partly allowing the complaint preferred by the respondent.

IT suffices to mention that the respondent-complainant was aggrieved by as many as six bills for telephonic charges betwixt the period of July, 1991 to March, 1993. IT was the case that the telephone was used for purely private and domestic purposes and the excessive charges, therefor were apparently manipulated due to the mis-conduct of the employees of the respondent-department. The plea was that for a substantial period, the telephone had remained out of order and no outside calls were made. IT was highlighted that the appellant-department had itself granted a rebate in respect of some of the impugned bills without specifying the mode or manner of doing so. The appellant-department in opposing the complaint took up the routine plea that the consumer enjoyed the S.T.D. facility and the bills were issued on the basis of the actual consumption recorded on the metering equipment. It was conceded that substantial rebate in some of the bills had been granted, whilst the same had been rejected qua the other. It was pleaded that the past pattern of consumption had no relevance to the issue.

The District Forum declined to give relief with regard to the two bills of November, 1992 and March, 1992 to the tune of Rs. 1562/- and Rs. 1648/- respectively inter-alia on the ground that the amounts thereof were not so heavy as to invoke interference and there was a possibility of as many calls having been made. However, as regards the remaining four bills, it came to the following conclusion : "This defect is borne out from the action of the respondents themselves. It is that rebate of Rs. 1100/- and 3850/- was granted to the consumer in the bills of 7/91 and 9/92. Obviously the investigation carried out by the Opposite Party proved some snag in the system and therefore, it accorded relief to the consumer nor placed before this Forum to provide justification for the limited rebate granted in the bills of 7/91 and 9/92 and for the refusal of rebate in the bills of 2/92 and 7/ 92. For the non-production of the investigation report an inference adverse to the case of the respondents has to be drawn."

Inevitably relief was granted in the aforesaid terms with a direction to the Department to reframe the bills on the basis of the average number of calls found in three immediately preceding bills of the concerned period and by adding 10% etc. calls.

MR. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant had raised the somewhat hackneyed argument that the respondent enjoyed the S.T.D. facility and the rebate already granted was adequate. No meaningful challenge however, could be raised to the afore-quoted finding of the District Forum. We are afraid that herein there appears to be no merit in the stand taken on behalf of the appellant. It is common ground that on the basis of its own investigation, the Department found patent error in the recorded metering and allowed substantial rebates, therefor. Even when required to do so before the District Forum, the appellants failed to provide any justification for the limited rebate granted in the two of the bills or for the refusal as regards the two others. Even before us, the learned Counsel though pin-pointed to indicate as to how the quantum of the rebate has been worked out was wholly at sea to explain the same. It would appear in the present context that having itself found a defect in the recorded metering, a vague rule of the thumb was applied in granting a limited rebate and in altogether refusing the same, which cannot be supported on any rationale. The District Forum was, therefore, right in the view, which it took in the peculiar circumstances of the case. We are in agreement with both the approach and the conclusion and deem it unnecessary to further elaborate the matter in this order of affirmance.

FOR the fore-going reasons, this appeal is . without merit and is hereby dismissed without order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.