Telecom District Engineer vs SATPAL BHANDARI, ADVOCATE

MR. Justice S.S. Dewan, President-First Appeal Nos. 124 and 125 of 1992 are preferred by the same appellant, Telecom District Engineer, Hoshiarpur, impleading the same respondent-Shri Sat Pal Bhandari, Advocate therein. Both the appeals are directed against the common order of the District Forum, Ropar dated 30.9.1992 and raise identical questions of law and facts. The parties are agreed that this order will govern both the appeals.

THE representative facts may be noticed from First Appeal No. 124 of 1992, arising from complaint No. 41 of 1992 before the District Forum. THE complainant-respondent, who is an Advocate at Ropar, is a subscriber of telephone No. 2223. THE complainant alleged that he had been billed for excessive calls in the bill of 21.3.1992 for Rs. 566/-. It was suggested that the excess billing was either due to malfunctioning of the meter or was the result of tampering with the telephone lines by the departmental staff. Consequently, he approached the District Forum for relief con tending that he may be billed on the basis of calls made by him in the past. On notice being issued to the appellant-Department, the stand of the complainant was stoutly controverter. It was pointed out that the complainant had not made any representation to the Department with regard to this bill and made its payment without any demur. It was further averred that the case of the complainant was thoroughly examined and the disputed bill was found to be correct. THE categoric stand of the Department was that the technical equipment and the meter attached to the telephone of the complainant was checked and found working perfectly alright and that no restriction was imposed by the Department to use the telephone to any extent by the complainant. A chart of the case in respect of the telephone connection was placed on the record to substantiate the Department''s case. The District Forum in its somewhat brief order, adverted to the billing period beginning from 1990 to 1992 and allowed the complaint by inferring that there was reason to believe that the bill in dispute issued by the Department on the higher side, was not correct and that the ends of justice would be fully served if the recovery of Rs. 300/- on account of S.T.D./local calls was made from the complainant with regard to the bill in dispute. Not satisfied with the relief granted, the present appeal has been preferred.

The appellant''s case is that the Telephone Department has categorically stated that by a check, it was found that there was no fault in the meter and the complainant was correctly billed. In the face of this averment, a vague allegation made by the complainant-respondent was that the excess billing in his case was due to tampering of the telephone connection of the complainant at the Exchange. What is significant is the fact that in this specific case despite having been stoutly challenged, the complainant chose to lead no evidence worth the name in support of his claim. The complaint itself was not verified and even the affidavit of the complainant in support of his allegations was not added. Barring the statement of bills from April 1990 to July 1992, no other evidence was meaningfully directed to the crucial issue of either faulty metering or any malpractice on the part of the employees of the Department was placed on the record. Any such suggestion was categorically controverted on behalf of the appellant. The District Forum inferred faulty metering merely on the ground that the amount of the disputed bill was somewhat high, but such inference is unwarranted both on principle and the repeated chain of the precedents of the National Commission on the point. Reference in this connection may be made to the following observations of the National Commission in II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC) (Divisional Manager, Telephones v. Madhu Enterprise, Lucknow) : - "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 Forum to determine arbitrarily the maximum number of calls ought to be metered for the purpose of billing in respect of a particular telephone number."

FOR the reasons stated above, we are unable to sustain the orders under appeal which are hereby set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.