TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, COONOOR vs VIJAY PRABHU

THE complainant''s case is that there is a telephone bearing indicator No. 45478 installed in his house. He was surprised to receive a bill dated 1.10.1997 for gross calls numbering 2747 and charging Rs. 3,440/-. THE complainant sent a communication informing about the excess billing and stating that he was away from station for 1 months and never used the phone. THE complainant has also requested the opposite parties to give a printout of the calls made under the telephone in question for the relevant period. He also requested the opposite parties to issue a split bill so as to enable the complainant to pay the same pending investigation. THEre was no response. Hence, the complainant sent a registered notice on 6.12.1997. In the meanwhile, the complainant received the subsequent bill dated 1.12.1997 for the subsequent period of two months and as there was nothing wrong about the billing and was satisfied about the charges, the complainant paid the same on 20.12.1997. To the two notices issued by the complainant, there has been no reply at all. While so, the opposite parties high-handedly and illegally disconnected the telephone connection on 31.1.1998. THE 2nd opposite party sent a communication stating that the complaint is being investigated and they did not find any fault in the meter and that the increase in bimonthly calls may be due to increase in user of STD/LOCAL. THE opposite parties did not comply with the complainant''s request for printout of the telephone calls. THEy have also not adverted to the fact that the telephone in question was unused for 1 months. Since the complainant was in urgent need of phone, he paid the same on 1.10.1997 under protest. THE opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. THEy are bound to make investigation. THEy are bound to furnish printout of the calls made. Thus, there is deficiency in service on their part. THEy have failed to comply with the legal requirements. THErefore, the complainant prays for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

THE opposite parties contended as follows: THE Forum has no jurisdiction. It is true that a bill was sent for Rs. 3,440/-. THE opposite party was not aware that the complainant was out of station during the alleged period. It is not necessary that the complainant should alone use the phone. THE facility made to supply printout of calls is not available in Ooty Exchange. As per the Departmental standing instructions, splitup bills can be issued only if the number of calls claimed in the bill against which suspected excess metering complaint received is more than 100% of any of the preceding six bi-monthly periods. In present case, no splitup bill could be issued since the complaint made did not qualify for the same. THE calls registered were only 3136 gross calls as against 2747 gross calls during the phone bill period in question. THE allegation that the opposite parties failed to respond to the communication and reminders is not true. Since the complainant had suspected excess metering the complaint was under investigation and, therefore, no specific reply could be furnished. THE meter was thoroughly checked and found in perfect order. Further the complainant has the lockin facility and there was no possibility of any misuse of the telephone. THE billing was totally in accordance with the recorded consumption during bill dated 1.10.1997. THE complainant cannot take advantage of the opposite party''s not meeting the allegation regarding the complainant''s out of station. THE disconnection has been made because the amount was not paid within time. Further, a recorded voice reminder had also been given to the complainant twice before actual disconnection. THE telephone bills are public revenue and the complainant is paying the bill for service rendered by the Department. THE other allegations are not admitted. THE question of issuing registered notice before disconnection does not arise. THE complainant has not made any prior arrangement with the department for such communication. THEre is no deficiency in service. The lower Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages for mental agony and sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

The fact remains that the complainant''s phone was disconnected. The complainant has written a letter objecting to the bill stating that it was on the higher side. But, without settling the matter, the Department has proceeded to disconnect the telephone. When a dispute is raised, the matter has to be investigated and if after investigation no agreement is reached as to the amount to be paid and then the matter has to be referred to arbitration. But, in this case on hand, the opposite parties have resorted to disconnection. They have not even communicated the result of their inquiry nor have asked for any remarks of the complainant. They have chosen to take very fast action while disconnecting but when it came to making investigation, they are very slow footed. They admit that it is a service rendered by them to the public. But, in this case, there is defect in the rendering of service. They have rushed to disconnect when there was absolutely no compelling necessity to do so. Definitely the disconnection of a telephone facility would cause hardship to the party concerned. The lower Forum has quantified the damages in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to differ from that. It is also to be pointed out that the complainant has been asking for iternized bill. Simply stating that there is no facility, the opposite party cannot escape liability. There must be recording. Otherwise how it was possible for them to say in their version that the billing was totally in accordance with the recorded consumption during bill dated 1.10.1997. Therefore, they ought to have furnished the complainant with an extract of the recorded consumption especially when the party asked for it on the ground the billing is excess. When it is a service they are providing and when they are not only charging but also imposing service tax, it is their bounden duty to furnish copies or iternized bills to the complainant whenever demanded by them. Of course, if it requires that any charges have to be levied for furnishing iternized bill, it is open to them to claim it and then furnish the same to the subscriber. But, they cannot refuse under one pretext or the other. Therefore, in such circumstances, we find there is absolutely no merit in this appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order of the lower Forum. Cost of Rs. 500/-. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal dismissed.