TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs Banarsi Devi

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Alwar dated 18.4.1995 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent Smt. Banarsi Devi has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to quash the demands raised against her through bill dated 1.5.1994 for an amount of Rs. 27,789/-, of Rs. 33,593/- through bill dated 13.5.1994 and of Rs. 5,789/- through bill dated 19.5.1994 with a further direction that for the period between 25.5.1993 to 23.5.1994 the bill in respect of Tel. No. 24053 be raised on the basis of the bill in respect of another Tel. No. 24068 provided by the State Government and to restore the telephone services of Tel. No. 24053 with immediate effect. The District Forum also allowed an amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent as litigation cost.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent, besides telephone connection 24068 (provided by the State Government) had at the residence of her husband another Tel. No. 24053 also w.e.f. 24.5.1993. It has been the grievance of the respondent that when the bill dated 1.11.1993 amounting to Rs. 152/- was received, the payment was duly made and thereafter whatever bills were received in respect of Tel. No. 24053 they were also duly paid. However, the appellant sent a bill dated 1.5.1994 amounting to Rs. 27,789/-, thereafter sent another bill dated 13.5.1994 for an amount of Rs. 33,593/- and then sent the III bill dated 19.5.1994 for an amount of Rs. 5,789/-. The respondent complained about these excessive demands to the appellant but the appellant did not give any heed to it. Finding that the appellant had threatened to disconnect her telephone connection, she had to approach the learned District Forum to quash the aforesaid demands. The learned District Forum after consideration of the reply filed by the appellant; allowed the complaint of the respondent as stated earlier. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and gone through the material placed on the record.

It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that there being STD facility on the said Tel. No. 24053 and on finding that there is no mechanical error in the metering equipment of the appellant, the demands were raised as per utilisation of the said tel. by the respondent. As against it, the version of the respondent has been that there being another Tel. No. 24068 provided by the State Government, it was impossible that the bill pertaining to Tel. No. 24053 could reach exorbitant limits as disclosed by the demands raised by the appellant. It has also been urged that since the respondent had asked for discontinuation of the STD facility on Tel. No. 24053 w.e.f. 23.5.1994 and the respondent had also not opted for STD facility being made available on this Tel. No.; the demands made are not only incorrect but excessive; and have been rightly quashed by the learned District Forum. Another line of argument of the respondent has been that earlier this Tel. No. 24053 was installed at the residence of one Lalit Kumar as a CCB PCO and who was running it on his Tel. No. 22767 having STD facility at his PCO; and thus the employees of the appellant with the connivance of the said person have raised aforesaid demands incorrectly in collision with them and for that the respondent cannot be held liable. It has, therefore, been urged that the appeal be dismissed.

WE have given anxious thought and consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties and have carefully gone through the material placed before us. From a perusal of the contentions raised and material placed by the parties on the record, it is made out that Tel. No. 24053 was installed at the residence of the respondent on 24.5.1993 and thereafter bills received by the respondent disclosed only the rental charges without disclosing the units consumed on the said tel. which appear to have been duly paid by the respondent. It is further made out that before Tel. No. 24053 was installed at the residence of the respondent, this Tel. No. was earlier installed at the residence of one Lalit Kumar at 1/567, Aravali Vihar, Alwar and the facility provided was on CCB PCO basis where STD facility was also provided. Further, for the period between 5.9.1993 and 1.11.1993, and on 1.11.1993, 1.1.1994 and 1.3.1994 no charges on account of foreign calls and local calls were indicated in the demands raised by the appellant through bills but thereafter the excessive demands which are challenged in the complaint were received by the respondent. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it is necessary to determine whether the demands raised on this Tel. No. towards the respondent were for of any specified period which remained earlier installed at the residence of one Lalit Kumar. Further, it has also to be determined why it was not possible for the appellant to indicate the units consumed by the respondent in the demands for the said Tel. No. for almost a period of one year. It has also to be examined as to what has been the effect of indicating "STD facility not to be barred" in the prescribed column of the original application moved by the respondent to obtain the telephone (disputed) connection. To us, it appears that it is a matter which requires detailed examination of the records of the appellant as also to see with the assistance of technical experts of telecommunication whether the metering equipment had not been functioning properly and also that the alleged excessive demands were due to computer mistake in feeding figures in respect of the disputed Tel. No. of the respondent.

IN our opinion, this is a matter which needs thorough examination and involved so many complexities that cannot be decided in a summary manner. IN fact, it calls for detailed and thorough examination of the dispute after affording both the parties opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence so also a detailed verification by the appellant''s technical personnel pertaining to the issuance of the questionable demands as also demands indicating only rental charges of the telephone for a period of almost one year. We, therefore, are of the firm view that this matter should be referred under Section 7B of the Telegraphs Act, 1885 for arbitration of a competent Arbitrator by the appellant. In this connection, we are supported by a decision of Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of Krishka Bharti Cooperative Ltd. and Another v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telephone Circle and Another, I (2003) CPJ 21 (NC)=2003 CTJ 103 (NCDRC). Consequently, the order of the learned District Forum is set aside and a direction is given under Section 7B of the Telegraphs Act, 1885 to the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator to go into the dispute between the parties as raised in the complaint as observed earlier and decide the matter in accordance with law; after affording due opportunity to both the parties and decide the matter within four months of receipts of this order by it. Cost on parties. Appeal allowed.