TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs H.M.A.SAMED

IN this case, the dispute relates to a telephone bill dated 1.7.1994 in respect of telephone No. 694 of the complainant. The bill was for Rs. 3,170/-. According to the complainant, this bill is excessive and not in accordance with the phone calls made by him. His case is that all his bimonthly bills would not exceed Rs. 2,000/- excepting one bill dated 1.5.1994 which was for a sum of Rs. 782/- which amount he has paid. He would submit that the excess bill must be due to fault in the meter or billing. He informed about it to the opposite party Telecom District Engineer, but there was no reply. Therefore he has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party contending that they are liable to refund the excess amount paid by him for the bill dated 1.7.1994 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

THE opposite parties contended that the complainant never raised any dispute regarding the disputed bill and there was no defect in the meter nor was there any excess billing and there was no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the bill in question must be excessive and not in accordance with the phone calls made by the complainant. Thus holding, it directed the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 2,925/- together with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and also costs of Rs. 500/-.

Now in the appeal, it is contended that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and probabilities of the case and hence it is liable to be set aside. As seen above, it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant had not raised any dispute regarding the bill dated 1.7.1994. Regarding that, the District Forum has observed that the complainant has filed Exs. A-6 and A-7 as the notices sent by him to the opposite party and when they are considered it would appear that the case of the opposite party that no dispute was raised regarding the bill in question cannot be correct. But now before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ opposite'' party contends that Exs, A-6 and A-7 are only copies of alleged notices and the complainant has not filed any acknowledgement to show the receipt of their originals by the opposite party. We find this submission of the learned Counsel has much force. Merely from the copies of notices filed it cannot be said that really the complainant has sent notices to the opposite party. It is not clear from the order of the District Forum as to how it arrived at the figure Rs. 2,925/- which has been directed to be refunded by the opposite party. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party brings to our notice an order of the National Commission in Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad v. Virender Kumar, II (1997) CPJ 60 (NC). In that order, it is stated that: "If any dispute concerning any telegraph lines, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the disputes shall be determined by arbitration. This Commission has frowned upon the practice of some of the District FORA in quashing the telephone bills and directing tine Telecommunication Department to issue revised bill on the basis of averages. When there is a defect in the meter or telephone line, the proper course is to grant the relief and direct the dispute being settled within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act."

In view of this order of the National Commission, we are of the view that it would be just and proper to refer the entire dispute in the matter to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The opposite party is directed to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act within one month from the elate of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed.