S.D.O.(TELEPHONES) REWARI vs KISHAN LAL SAINI

FIRST Appeal Nos. 254,257 and 268 of 1992 have all been preferred by the Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Rewari and are directed against the closely analogous and virtually identical orders of the District Forum Rewari. Since the primal issue herein is common, this order will govern all three of them.

WE are firmly inclined to the view that this set of appeals stands concluded in favour of the appellant-department by the binding precedents of the National Commission in I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), The District Manager, Telephones Other v. Niti Saran; II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC), Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Limited and II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC), Divisional Manager Telephones, Lucknow v. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknow. It there- fore, suffices to advert to the facts with utmost brevity. The representative matrix may be noticed from First Appeal No. 254 of 1992. The respondent Shri Kishan Lal Saini on his own showing is the Lok Dal President at Rewari. Admittedly, he was the subscriber of telephone No. 2350 which stands installed at his premises and his grievance was that earlier he was receiving the bills for telephone charges therefor for relatively moderate amounts and none of these bad exceeded Rs. 511/- only. However, on the 11th of February, 1992, he received a bill of Rs. 1,276/- which according to him was highly excessive and not in line with the alleged actual consumption. On notice of the complainant being issued to the appellant-department, Shri Hari Singh Thakur, Inspector appeared on its behalf and filed a reply to the complaint. It was specifically pleaded that on the receipt of a complaint to the appellant-department by the subscriber his meter and other equipments were checked by the competent Engineers and further a comparative study of the previous bills was made and the complete case got thoroughly examined. From the examination thereof, the competent authority found that there was no justification for any rebate or reduction in the bill which was correct and justified according to the consumption. A prayer consequently was made that the complainant be directed to forthwith make the payments outstanding against him. The parties confined them- selves to the pleadings and the relevant bills placed on the record and no further evidence was led on either side.

The learned District Forum in a somewhat brief order proceeded to reduce the impugned bill of Rs. 1,276/- to Rs. 640/- only; on the ground that this amount would be 25% over and above the higher bill received earlier on the 11th of December, 1991 for Rs. 511/-. Relief was consequently granted to the respondent in these terms.

MR. Arun Walia, the learned Counsel for the appellant in all the three appeals has forcefully and rightly assailed the identical reasoning of the District Forum as being contrary to the now settled view taken by the National Commission. It was pointed out that the theory of either the average of previous bills or any percentage above the highest earlier bills as a foundation have been categorically disapproved by the binding precedents of the National Commission noticed earlier. The learned Counsel for the appellant is patently on the firm ground. What meets the eye herein is the fact that the respondent in his some- what cryptic complaint did not even remotely allege any defect in the metering equipment. What is further significant is the fact that admittedly the respondent is a public man being the Pradhan of the Lok Dal at Rewari and curiously in his complaint itself he had stated that the telephone had been got installed as a matter of social and public service by him. The factum of the same having enjoyed the STD facility throughout was not denied by the respondent who had argued his case in person. Even the previous bills relied upon by the complainant- respondent themselves show a wide variation and fluctuation in the number of calls in so far as the bill dated the 11th of February, 1991 was only for a sum of Rs. 245/- only whilst the other admitted bill of the 11th of November, 1991 was double the said amount at the figure of Rs. 511/- only. It would be obvious therefrom that on the complainant''s own showing the variation in the use of the telephone could be geometrically in periods of two months each.

IT is somewhat elementary now that with the S.T.D. facility, it is open to a subscriber not to make only National calls but even International ones wherein a single call can be at the level of a considerable amount depending upon its duration and the distance of the station called. What further is conclusive are the observations of the National Commission in the judgments noticed above that unless it is established that there is a defect in the metering equipment or patent malpractice, the Redressal Agencies under the Act cannot resort to the theory of the average number of calls or peg them at the highest level earlier or any supposed percentage over and above that for granting relief. Herein, as already noticed no evidence was led on behalf of the complainant to discharge his onus, however light it may be, at all and he was therefore, far from establishing the minimal requirement of proof regarding the defective metering or established malpractice which alone can form the foundation for relief. In this context, particular attention is called for to the binding observations in Divisional Manager Telephones, Lucknow v. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknow, II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC) (supra):- "IT is the Telecommunication Department which maintains the meters regarding calls made from a particular telephone. IT is the responsibility of the Telecommunication Department to ensure that the metering equipment is efficient and that there is no incorrect metering regarding calls. Unless, therefore, it can be established that the metering equipment is defective or has been manipulated, the calls metered for a particular telephone by the Department would form the proper basis of bil1ing. IT is not open to the Consumer Forums to determine arbitrarily the maximum number of calls that ought to be metered for the purpose of billing in respect of a particular telephone number."

In line with the afore-quoted binding precedent of the National Commission, we are unable to sustain the contrary view of the District Forum with regard to the highest previous bills and a percentage of 25% over and above as the virtual ceiling there- after. It would be wasteful and indeed pointlessly repetitive to advert to the individual facts of the other two appeals. It suffices to mention that in them also the same reasoning of the previous highest bill with a rise of 25% thereon, has been taken as the basis for granting relief. For the foregoing reasons, all these three appeals have to be allowed and we are constrained to set-aside the orders of the District Forum. However, we would not wish to burden the respondent- consumers with any costs. Appeals allowed. ________________