TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, HOSHIARPUR vs Bhupinder Pal Singh

THIS appeal by the opposite-parties before the District Forum in directed against the order dated 26.12.1992 passed by the District Forum, Hoshiarpur in Complaint Case No. 110 of 1991.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a subscriber of telephone bearing No. 2195 (old 3471). He received a telephone bill dated 1.10.1991 for Rs. 12,380/-, which, according to him, was excessive and inflated. He prayed for the quashment of that bill. THE opposite-parties-Appellants denied the allegations of the complainant. It was pleaded that the complainant was billed on the basis of the calls made by him. THE District Forum relied on the averments made by the complainant and passed the impugned order by observing as under : "...THE rebate given by the department itself implies its admission about excess metering of the local calls without the same having been actually made thereby corroborating the claim made by the complainant about the faulty functioning of the exchange and the metering equipment. THE abnormal part as reflected by 11300 chargeable calls as given in the chart is indicative of some mistake cropping up in the functioning of the equipment disclosing serious deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party. THE complainant in the circumstances cannot be said to have made more than 470 local calls, the maximum during the undisputed billing period preceding the disputed one."

THE District Forum accordingly directed the opposite parties to issue a revised bill to the complainant for 470 local calls only. After hearing the parties'' Counsel and going through the record with requisite care, we find that the District Forum has decided this case on the assumption that the bills in question with regard to the local calls were much excessive. This approach a judicial mind has to avoid. While disposing of the complaint, the District Forum has observed that earlier the consumer had received the inflated bills and on his request the opposite-parties had given him rebates and therefore, a legitimate inference could be drawn that the Telephone Department had been impliedly admitting that the bills were excessive. The judicial pronouncement has to be supported with facts and law. The Telephone Departrment has stated in its reply that there was no mechanical fault and the meter recorded correct readings.

It is settled now that when a subscriber complaints about an excessive bill, he has to prove by adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of the particular telephone by the employees of the Telephone Department. In this case, no evidence has been adduced by the complainant to show that the metering equipment was faulty or that the telephone was misused by the officials of the Telephone Department. The order passed by the District Forum oh the alleged excessive billing by the Telephone Department cannot be sustained as the billing is based on the metered calls. In the view, we are fortified by a decision of the National Commission in District Manager (Telephones) & Anr. v. Niti Saran, (Revision Petition No. 67 of 1992, decided on 20.12.1992).

WE are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of the District Forum which is hereby set aside. The parties will bear their own costs. Order set aside.