TELECOM ASSISTANT ENGINEER vs C. REDDEPPA M.D.

THE opposite parties in C.D. No. 440 of 1992 on the file of the District Forum, Ongole are the appellants in this appeal. THE respondent herein is the subscriber of telephone No. 2939 in Ongole. It has STD facility. For nearly three years prior to the issuing of the bill dated 1.7.1992, the bi-monthly bills range between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 900/-. When the bill dated 1.7.92 was issued for a sum of Rs. 8430/- the respondent herein failed the above complaint alleging that the bill issued was abnormally high and that there was some fault in the meter reading or billing. As the representation made to the appellant did not yield any result, it is prayed in the C.D. that the respondent may be directed to collect Rs. 600/- being the average amount for the last 5 or 6 years.

THE opposite parties submitted that on receiving complaint the line circuit and meter circuit of the petitioner were checked besides the rountine checks made periodically, and it was found that the equipment was functioning well. It was further submitted that the excess billing would be due to excess calls made by the complainant and the average of calls made by the complainant for the previous year cannot be relied upon for determining that the subsequent bill issued is excessive. The District Forum held that although there is possibility of making the calls metered still it found there is possibility of misusing the phone by the telephone department itself. The District Forum has taken into consideration the average number of calls made by the complainant in the earlier years and held that the complainant be directed to pay Rs. 1900/- towards telephone bill for the billing period from 1.5.92 to 30.6.92 and excluded payment of Rs. 6530/-.

Questioning the said order the above appeal is preferred by the opposite parties.

SRI B. Narayana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that this method of arriving at the average of the calls in earlier years and on that basis determining that the bills are excessive and reducing the amount by the Forum is deprecated by the National Commission. He relied on the two decisions viz. The Divisional Manager, Telephones, Lucknow v. M/s. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknow II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC)=(1) 1992 (1) C.R.P. P.8. and Telecom District Engineer v. Prannath Mahajan (2) 1993 (1) CPR P.101 of the National Commission. In the first cited decision it was held that: "..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 billing. 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 the second decision, it was held by the National Commission that where no defect in the meter equipment is alleged or proved and in the absence of proving abrupt and abnormal spurt in the calls it cannot be held that the bill issued is wrong. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the National Commission and as there is no evidence in this case to establish that there is any defect in the meter or that it has been manipulated we are not inclined to agree with the conclusion of the District Forum that the complainant shall pay only Rs. 1900/- towards the bill issued. We therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum. It is submitted by Sri Ravindranatha Reddy the learned Counsel for the respondent that since he is disputing the very functioning of the meter in respect of which he wants to adduce evidence the matter may be referred to arbitration wherein the defective functioning of the meter or the possibility of any mal-practice by the department can be proved.

IN the circumstances, we consider it appropriate that the appellant shall refer the dispute with regard to bill dated 1.7.92 for Rs. 8430/- to arbitrator. It is open to the respondent herein to make all the submissions before the Arbitrator. Pending decision by the arbitrator the complainant shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 2000/- with the Accounts Officer, Office of Telecom Engineer, Telephones Department, Ongole, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of order and shall pay the balance of the amount in accordance with the decision as determined by the Arbitrator. Pending decision by the Arbitrator, the telephone of the complainant shall not be disconnected for non-payment of bill dated 1.7.92. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed without costs. Appeal allowed.