TELECOM DEPT. vs RUPA GURANG

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had a telephone connection made available by the petitioner. Her average bills between March, 1997 to January, 1998 ranged to Rs. 265 to Rs. 846 per billing cycle, but then all of a sudden there was a sudden spurt and the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 32,892 for the period from 16.1.1998. to 15.3.1998 and another bill for Rs. 10,924 for the period from 16.3.1998. to 15.5.1998 and again from 16.7.1998. to 15.9.1998 the bill was issued for Rs. 1,572, this sudden spurt in the billing amount, was taken up with the petitioner but finding no satisfactory reply, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, cancelled the bills for the period from 16.1.1998 to 15.3.1998, 16.3.1998 to 15.5.1998 and 16.7.1998 to 15.9.1998, and the petitioner was directed to prepare the bills for this period on the basis of average amounts of the bills received during the period of 6 months preceding 16.1.1998. Petitioner was also directed to restore the telephone connection within 15 days of the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the bills and the details about the calls made on different dates including use of ISD. He drew our attention to the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, in which the complainant herself admitted that from 16.1.1998 to 15.3.1998, she made 22 calls out of total calls 159 allegedly to have been made by her and similarly for the period from 16.3.1998 to 15.5.1998, she made 36 calls out of 87 calls allegedly to have been made by her. Yet both the lower Forums went wrong in not allowing even the charges for the admitted calls. He also drew our attention to the application for getting the telephone connection wherein the complainant had asked for STD and ISD facility. In view of which both the lower Forums erred in passing the order they did, for the simple reason that the complainant would have been making STD, ISD calls for which she has to pay. The order passed by both the lower Forums needs to be set aside.

We have perused the material on record and find one ground to partly agree with the order passed by the lower Forums. The District Forum has relied upon the order passed by this Commission relying upon the guidelines of the Department where sudden spurt in making calls is noticed and the responsibility in such situation of the Department. We reproduce this :- "The State Commission have referred to the guidelines issued by the Telecommunication Department for disposal of excess meter complaints, which also deal with advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint. The action to be taken includes (a) Meter readings being taken every fortnight; (b) Identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly reading show a sudden spurt and (c) In case of such sudden spurts being noticed placing the telephone line on observations and deputing responsible staff to the subscriber''s premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts. In the present case, there was admittedly a spurt in the said period. The billing period is for two months and thus consists of four fortnights. The question which remain unanswered by the revision petitioner Department is the reason why advance action was not taken by them, especially when according to them, the guidelines are meant to maintain the confidence of the subscribers. It may be mentioned that the metering equipment remains under the possession and control of the Department and not under the control of the subscriber. In case of dispute equipment, therefore, the petitioner Department should produce objective basis for proving that the metering equipment was not defective. In the light of this and the fact that the availability of STD of the said phone had not resulted in inflated calls for the period relating to the disputed bill, it becomes incumbent on the part of the petitioner Department to substantiate and establish the evidence that the metering equipment was in fact not defective. For this purpose, we set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Forum for de novo adjudication by affording a further opportunity to both parties to adduce any additional evidence which they may desire to place before the Forum.

WHEN specifically confronted with these guidelines, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was candid enough to admit that no such action was taken by the Department as these guidelines are quite old. We are of the view that no material has been shown to us that these guidelines are withdrawn and cancelled, in the absence of which, non-adherence or non-observance of these directions, which have come in the form of guidelines, need to be followed by all in the Department. Non-observance of these guidelines, itself is a deficiency on the part of the petitioner. Had they followed these guidelines then they would inform the complainant about the sudden spurt in the calls made and then whatever amount they had raised in the bill would have had some legs to stand on. Admittedly between billing cycle from 16.3.1997 to 15.1.1998, the bills ranged from Rs. 265 to Rs. 846. After that a sudden spurt in the bills were raised for about Rs. 33,000 and Rs. 11,000 in the two succeeding bill cycles, followed by a sudden spurt of Rs. 1,572 in the billing cycle from July and September 1998, had they followed their own guidelines then this situation would not have been arisen. This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the petitioner for non-observing the internal guidelines and not warning the complainant about the sudden spurt in the calls being made. In the light of the above, as rightly held by both the lower Forums, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by both the lower Forums except to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to charge for the calls admittedly made in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum/along with other direction given by the District Forum. The Revision petition is partly allowed in above terms. Revision Petition partly allowed.