TELE COMMUNICATION DISTRICT MANAGER-/O.P. vs BHARAT JYOTI TRANSPORT SERVICE

THIS appeal has been filed by the Telecommunication District Manager, Bhuj-Kachchh against the decision of the District Forum. The respondent-complainant is a subscriber of telephone number 23515 at his premises and he used to get telephone bills for calls ranging from 155 to 695 during the preceding year beginning from 1.9.89 to 1.1.91. The last bill dated 1.1.9 lis alleged to be for 360 calls. He received a bill dated 1.3.91 showing the gross calls at 1785 which being more than double the earlier bill made a complaint to the Telephone Department. The bill was for the amount of Rs. 2,707/-. An interim average bill of Rs. 1,372/- was given by the Department pending investigation.

PENDING enquiry of the said bill, the next bill dated 1.5.91 was received by the complainant which registered 2965 gross calls and the amount of the bill increased to Rs. 3,781/-. The complaint was made demanding split bill but the same was not given and the complainant was required to make full payment. The complainant paid the bill under protest. Again, pending enquiry of the 1st bill and the second disputed bill, he received the third disputed bill dated 1.7.91 for 1870 gross calls amounting to Rs. 2,217/-. He made a complaint and had to pay the amount under protest. Thus the three consecutive bills received by the complainant were alleged to be very high and he requested the Telephone Department by letters and by last letter dated 25.7.91 to settle the dispute of excess inflated bills. However, the opposite party-the present appellant by letter dated 30.7.91 informed the complainant that there was no justification in the complaints regarding bills dated 1.3.91, 1.5.91 and was requested to pay the balance bill dated 1.3.91 for which ad-hoc bill was given. No details regarding the investigation were furnished. He, therefore, filed the present complaint before the District Forum and prayed that the opponent may remove the deficiency of service, prepare correct bill for the three consecutive bills and the opposite party may further be directed to refund the amount charged after preparing average bills. The appellant Department has filed its version and produced several documents. The District Forum, after hearing both the parties and considering the documents produced by the Department as well as the complainant, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant Department to give the average bill instead of the bill amount shown in the bill dated 1.3.91,1.5.91and 1.7.91 and to refund the excess amount recovered from the complainant and has also awarded cost of Rs. 150/-. In reaching to this conclusion the District Forum observed that the complainant is not having STD facilities at all and, therefore, the bill cannot jump to the figures as recorded by the metering equipment. The District Forum has rejected the case of the Department that they had checked the equipments and found them to be in order on the ground that Exh. 11/1, 11/4 and 11/6 which were produced in support thereof were not for the disputed period. That the checking appears to have been made prior to the disputed period. In other words, there was no checking for the disputed period Other documents have been found to be written mechanically and the District Forum has not accepted the say of the Department that they had tested the equipments properly and found them working properly. If all the instruments were checked prior to the disputed period and if they have found to be mechanically written, again, it cannot be said to possess any evidential value and if they were rejected by the District Forum, we cannot find any error committed by the District Forum. The observations made by the District Forum regarding the documents produced by the Department shall have to be accepted. The impression of the District Forum that all these documents were mechanical reproduction without application of mind appears to be based upon its impression on reading these documents, which we are inclined to accept.

It may also be remembered that after filing of a complaint against the 1st bill the complainant very well knew that his telephone will remain under observation and he will always try to minimize the use of the telephone whereas in the instant case that the complainant made the complaint i.e. the gross calls in the first bill was very much in excess being 1785 calls, the second disputed bill recorded gross calls of 2965 which was much more than the first bill. To our opinion, a person in ordinary course would not make mo re than 4 to 5 times the maximum number of calls he has made for the previous periods, especially when there was no STD facility. If the defence of the Department that they have checked the equipments and metering system is not accepted in ordinary course of business, we shall have to come to the conclusion that there might be some fault in the lines or metering system. The Department has neither examined the person who has checked these lines and equipments nor has produced any other evidence which inspire confidence. Several complaints appear to have been made by the complainant and several reminders have been sent for settling the dispute. No proper opportunity of hearing appears to have been granted by the Department prior to rejecting his complaint. The documents which are produced ought to have been explained by somebody by entering in the witness box.

IT may not be forgotten that the Department is in possession of the lines, DP boxes and metering equipments and it is, therefore, the duty of the Department to prove that there was no fault either in the DP boxes, lines or metering equipment. They ought to have tested the lines making calls and recording the result of the calls and show ''that metering equipment had registered one call only when a call was made. The person who had carried out the test must tender his affidavit explaining every test to inspire confidence. In the aforesaid view of the matter and particularly when the bills are only for the local calls -without STD facilities and which are very much in excess of the average calls made by the complainant immediately prior to the disputed bills, it leads us to the inference that there was some defect some where especially when after making of the complaint the calls registered were more than 4 to 5 times than the average calls. We, therefore, find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs ORDER The appeal is dismissed with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs 3000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.