TELECOM DIVISIONAL ENGINEER vs BHIKARI PRASAD VERMA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.12.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum Ballia in Complaint Case No. 116/99. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :

THE complainant Bhikari Prasad Verma got a telephone connection installed at his residence in 1995. THE telephone had the facility of STD till 1996. Bills of the normal amount were received by the complainant and the payment was being made to the opposite party, Telephone Department. Telephone No. 21039 was changed to 22055. With this change bills of exorbitant amount started coming and instead of normal bill of Rs. 500/- complainant received the bills from 15.11.1996 to 30.9.1997 for Rs. 939/-, Rs. 1,280/-, Rs. 2,583/-, Rs. 4,081/- and Rs. 3,042;/-. THE complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party and requested to correct these bills but no heed was paid to his request. Subsequently the complainant on 23.10.1997 applied for disconnection of STD facility and orders were passed on the same day for STD disconnection. THEreafter the complainant continuously used the local telephone but after this date also bills of Rs. 1,474/-, Rs. 950/- Rs. 1,215/- and Rs. 4,435/- were received. Bills of such high amount were wrong because the telephone was being used for local calls after 23.10.1997. THE Department of Tele-communication disconnected the telephone connection without informing the complainant on 15.1.1999. THE complainant had applied for re-connection but the same was not done. A complaint was, therefore, lodged before the District Consumer Forum in which the following reliefs were claimed : (i) In regard to bills of excess amount an Arbitrator may be appointed under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1895. (ii) THE telephone connection of the complainant be restored with immediate effect. (iii) A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and torture be awarded to the complainant along with cost of proceedings of Rs. 1,000/-.

The opposite parties filed their written statement before the District Forum alleging that an amount of Rs. 26,124/-was outstanding against the complainant in respect of 15 telephone bills and since a default was committed in the payment of the said amount the telephone was disconnected on 15.1.1999. The bills have been prepared on the basis of the calls made by the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant had asked for removal of S.T.D. facility on 23.10.1997 and orders to this effect were passed by opposite parties on 24.10.1997 but due to technical reasons STD facility could not be disconnected immediately and the complainant continued to avail the STD facility even after 24.10.1997 till it was withdrawn. The opposite parties also filed the details of the calls along with bills, etc. before the District Forum.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties passed an order that the complainant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 8,000/- with the Telephone Department and the Department in turn will restore the telephone connection. The opposite party No. 1 was also directed to refer the matter to the Arbitrator and Arbitrator will give award within a period of 3 months and the amount of Rs. 8,000/- thus paid to the opposite parties shall be adjusted as per the provisions of award. For failure of the Arbitrator to give award the complainant was set at liberty to file a fresh complaint. It was also ordered by the Consumer Forum that in case the connection is not restored within a period of one week, the opposite parties would be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day as damages to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against the said judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum the opposite parties have come in appeal. In the memo of appeal the opposite parties have stated that since an amount of Rs. 26,124/- was outstanding against the respondent on account of non-payment of telephone bills, the telephone of the respondent was disconnected. The telephone bills were being raised by the department on the basis of actual calls recorded in the meter and after conversion of exchange into electronic exchange the calls had been recorded by the computer and, therefore, there was no error in recording the calls and the amount of bills. On 23.10.1997 the complainant deposited a fee of Rs. 50/- for disconnection of STD facility and although the orders were passed for disconnection on 24.10.1997, due to technical reasons the STD facility was disconnected only after some time due to non-availability of non- STD indicator in the Exchange. By merely depositing the fee for disconnection it cannot be presumed that STD facility is to be disconnected immediately. The bills of telephone connection having STD facility cannot be revised on the basis of previous bills and the District Forum arbitrarily directed the respondent to deposit a lumpsum amount of Rs. 8,000/- against the outstanding arrears. The District Forum could not have issued any direction for reduction of the amount and restoration of telephone connection and at the same time could not have passed an order referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the entire matter in dispute should have been referred to the Arbitrator and the order in regard to deposit of Rs. 8,000/- by the complainant should not have been passed at the same time. The Consumer Forum while passing the order did not come to any specific conclusion. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that inspite of the request made by the complainant for withdrawing the STD facility, the department did not act upon it and the telephone continued to have the STD facility which the complainant after 23.10.1997 did not avail and bills of exorbitant amount continued to come.

A perusal of the records goes to show that the point in dispute is that as per complainant''s version before the change of telephone number the average bill was of Rs. 500/- and after the telephone number was changed the amount of bill was increased many times. Whereas the opposite parties have taken the plea that even after 1996 the average was not Rs. 500/- and the bill dated 11.4.1996 was of Rs. 892/- and till then there was no locking facility in the STD telephone. 21 Group Exchange was converted into 22 Group Exchange and STD locking facility was made available and this type of 22 Group Exchange is fully computerised and since the STD locking facility was available there was no question of excess billing. The opposite parties have further stated that even after depositing the fee for withdrawal of STD facility the complainant was using the telephone for STD calls till the time STD facility was physically withdrawn. A perusal of the judgment and order of the District Forum would reveal that the Forum came to the finding that the bills from 21.4.1997 to 21.10.1997 were of STD facility and the bills which were received after 21.10.1997 were of the period when the STD facility was not available. The Forum, therefore, arrived at the finding that a factual investigation was necessary and, therefore, direction was issued for appointing an Arbitrator to sort out the dispute in regard to the actual amount payable against the outstanding dues of the appellants. Instead of complying with the order of the Forum the opposite parties have come in appeal. The Forum has also ordered that pending the settlement of dispute by the Arbitrator the complainant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards the outstanding bills and the telephone connection should be restored. There appears to be nothing wrong with the order of District Forum as the amount directed to be deposited by the complainant was adjustable after the controversy was settled by the Arbitrator. In the circumstances the appellants opposite parties should have appointed the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act to sort out the controversy. The case, therefore, deserves to be remanded back to the District Forum with the observation that the appellants shall appoint the Arbitrator as provided in the judgment and order of the District Forum within 15 days of the date of this order and the Arbitrator so appointed shall give his report within a month to the District Consumer Forum which will invite objections, if any, from the two parties and the Forum will thereafter, decide the controversy finally. ORDER The case is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, Ballia for a decision. The appellants shall appoint the Arbitrator within 15 days of this order and the report of the Arbitrator shall be submitted within a period of one month thereafter. The report of the Arbitrator shall be sent to District Consumer Forum concerned which shall invite objections from the two parties and finally decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible. If the Arbitrator fails to submit award within the time granted, then District Forum shall decide the complaint on merits. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal disposed of.