TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT vs Anil kumar

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 1.1.2001 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the Telephone Department was directed to make necessary correction in the bills dated 30.4.1996 and 1.6.1996 and after issue of the revised bill, the amount of Rs. 4,283/- deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the revised bill and to refund the amount deposited in excess. The appellant was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Anil Kumar had got a telephone No. 425047 installed at his residence in 1992. It was with STD facility. It is alleged that the complainant has been regularly paying the bills. He has alleged that he is in service and none of his family members are engaged in any business. He uses his telephone casually and keeps the STD locked. It is alleged that he received a bill on 30.4.196 for a sum of Rs. 3,153/-. He further received a bill on 1.6.1996, which was for a sum of Rs. 1,130/-. Both the bills were excessive. He has not used the STD facility. THE calls shown to have been made by him were wrong. For the correction of the bills, he contacted the officials of the Telephone Department and moved several applications but he was not heard. It is alleged that this is deficiency in service of the Telephone Department. He has further alleged that his average bill ranged between Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/-. He has given details of all his bills from January 1993 to February 1996 of continuous 3 years. THE complainant has made a request for the details of the meter reading on 24.4.1996 but he was not given any reply. It is further alleged that no action has been taken by the Telephone Department on the applications of the complainant regarding the revision of the bills. He has also given an application in Saharanpur Office but it was not heard. Looking the attitude of the Telephone Department, the complainant applied for disconnection of his STD facility on 3.7.1996 and that application was also not attended. This all shows the deficiency in service of the Telephone Department. He has deposited the amount of two bills under protest and has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,400/-. The opposite party contested the complaint and alleged that the bill of Rs. 3,153/- dated 1.4.1996 is perfectly correct. There is no mistake in it. It is further alleged that the complainant has been using the STD facility and it is only on that user the bill has gone to such an amount and the complainant is bound to pay that amount. Regarding the bill dated 1.6.1996, the opposite party said that this bill is perfectly correct. Regarding the complaint of the complainant for inquiry, it is alleged by the Telephone Department that the equipments were examined and were found correct. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite party, Telephone Department. It was further alleged that if there was dynamic lock system, the complainant should have locked the telephone to ensure that it is not being misused by anybody. It was alleged that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum held that regarding the inquiry on the complaint of the complainant no information was given to the complainant, which makes it clear that there was no proper inquiry and this is definitely a deficiency in service of the Telephone Department and the complaint was allowed as above. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the decisions of this Commission reported in II (2004) CPJ 439, Telecom Engineer v. Hukum Singh and I (2004) CPJ 98=2004 (1) CPC 207, Union of India v. K.S. Butola, wherein it has been held that the learned Forum has got no jurisdiction to direct by an application of rule of thumb what should be the actual bill of the complainant. It cannot decide the maximum number of calls and it cannot cancel the calls made by the complainant. In these rulings several other rulings have been referred. WE are not saying that the Forum has got jurisdiction to determine the number of calls by application of rule of thumb. Those findings are correct on those basis. In those cases, there was no allegation regarding the defect in metering equipment. There was no allegation of manipulation but here in this particular case the complainant has come with a specific case that he has seldom used the telephone and STD facility and he also keeps his telephone locked. But the real dispute in this particular case is regarding the complaint of the complainant to the Telephone Department, investigation on the complaint, procedure of investigation and information regarding the result to the complainant. The appellant did not produce even a single piece of paper to show that any notice was given to the complainant. It did not allege that the complainant did not participate in the investigation. There is also no allegation at all that after inquiry any information regarding the result of the inquiry was given to the complainant. The complainant has made a complaint in writing and the result of the inquiry should have been submitted to him in writing. It is without any meaning to say that we have ex parte examined the equipments and found them totally correct and in order. In the ruling reported in I (2004) CPJ 102 (NC), U.P. Pandey & Ors. v. Satnam Singh Chawla, the National Commission has held that when the bills were coming ordinarily but there was sudden spurt in billing cycle. Higher bills were not investigated as per procedure. There was deficiency in service and direction of the State Commission to the Telephone Department to revise bills on basis of highest bill during last 6 months + 10% for relevant period and to restore the connection was held to be justified. The procedure of investigation has been given in the ruling that "there are instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of Directions vide its Order No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.1986" and according to this meter reading should be taken every fortnight. The subscribers should be identified whose current fortnightly reading shows a sudden spurt. The telephone line should be put on observation and deputing responsible staff to the subscriber''s premises to check up that there has been no special occasion, which might have given rise to such spurts. There is no allegation that investigation in this manner was made. Any responsible staff was deputed to check that there has been special occasion, which might have given rise to such spurts. Similarly in the ruling reported in 2002 (1) CPR 84 (NC), Telecom District Manager, Department of Telecommunciation, Hoshiarpur, Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur, the National Commission again held that when there was allegation of sudden spurt and department did not take any action and checked according to the notifications, this also held to be deficiency in service. The same provisions have been referred in this ruling as well in detail and it was provided how action shall be taken in the case of excess billing, how investigation shall be made and what were the guidelines for decisions and conveying the same to the complaint in this regard. It is written herein that in every case the final reply should go to the complainant within a maximum period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the complainant. It is also provided in the notification dated 9.4.1986, item No. 7.4 that to give credibility to the investigations in the Department, individual typed replies should go to the subscribers, giving very briefly the investigations carried out, the results thereof and the reasons for the final decision. Nothing has been done like this in the present case.

THE learned Forum has passed a very innocuous order. It has only observed that no investigation has been made. This is deficiency in service and, therefore, the bills should be revised. THE Forum did not write on what basis the bills should be revised? But ordinarily it should be on the basis of the average calls as detailed by the complainant in his complaint from January 1993 to February 1996. THE telephone department can charge the maximum of the bill plus 10% as directed by the National Commission in the ruling reported in U.P. Pandey & Ors. v. Satnam Singh Chawla (supra), mentioned above. THE complainant has unnecessarily been put to harassment, therefore, the order of cost and compensation is also correct and is to be upheld. THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.