TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT vs MAHESH SAHNI

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the learned Forum directed the appellant Telephone Department to connect the telephone of the complainant and to issue him fresh bills and to take the payment. The learned Forum also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant and recommended for action against the erring employees.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Mahesh Sahni has taken a Telephone No. 74185. THE bill always ranged from between Rs. 200/- to Rs. 350/-. For the period from 15.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 there was a bill of Rs. 9,452/-. THE complainant was surprised to get it. He made a complaint to the SDO (Telephones) on 12.2.1997 and asked for inquiry. When he did not get reply, he made a complaint to the District Manager, Saharanpur on 5.3.1997 but no inquiry was made. He also submitted the copies of his earlier bills but no action was taken. His telephone was disconnected on 30.3.1997. He has suffered a loss of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that it is incorrect to say that the bill of the complainant always ranged from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 350/- only. On 1.4.1995 there was a bill of Rs. 407/- and on 1.8.1995 there was a bill of Rs. 773/-. The complainant made the payment without any objection and the bills were issued according to meter reading. Regarding the bill from 15.11.1996 to 15.1.1997, it is alleged that there was an inquiry and it was found that there was no defect in the meter of the complainant besides STD facility has always been used by the complainant. Since the bill was not deposited, the Telephone Department was authorised to disconnect the telephone.

During the course of hearing before the learned Forum, on the application of the complainant, the Forum directed the Telephone Department to file the copy of the inquiry report along with the details of bill of 29.1.1997 to 2.2.1997 and 25.11.1996 to 29.11.1996. It was observed by the learned Forum that the objection of the complainant was for the period from 15.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 but for this period no paper has been filed.

AFTER taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. In para 2 of the written statement, the appellant has alleged that the bill of 15.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 was for Rs. 9,452/- on the basis of the reading and it was alleged that on complaint, inquiry was made and on inquiry it was found that there was no defect in the bill and the bill was perfectly correct because it was after use of the STD facility. There is nothing written in this para that any notice was given to the complainant, that he was heard at the time of the inquiry, what he was asked to explain? It is true that there is STD facility is there in the telephone of the complainant but there is no allegation that there was any provision of dynamic lock in this STD. Use of STD does not mean that the complainant has gone mad and will sit on his telephone and go on making calls. The details of the calls have not been produced, nor it is cleared that in the inquiry the Telephone Department found that these calls were made to the real relations of the complainant or his customers or that the calls as made in the details bills were authenticated and were found correct. According to the rules, the investigation should be as per procedure.

IN the ruling reported in I (2004) CPJ 102 (NC), U.P. Pandey and Others 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 Telecommunication, 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 complainant 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 complaint. 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. IN this particular case the complainant has made complaint to the SDO (Telephones), then DET but no action was taken and no known inquiry was made. It is for the first time an evasive reply was given and the bill was checked and was found to be correct. Having considered all these facts that no proper inquiry was made, no investigation was made for the period, which was disputed, no reply was given before the learned Forum regarding the investigation, the learned Forum was perfectly justified in passing the order. We do not find any force in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.