TELEPHONES GENERAL MANAGER CHANDIGARH vs DIRECTOR REGIONAL COMPUTER CENTRE

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant was a subscriber of a telephone installed by the appellant for which a bill of Rs. 31,529 was issued for the period from 26. 7. 1992 to 25. 9. 1992, whereas the bill for the period from, 26. 9. 1992 to 25. 11. 1992 was for a sum of Rs. 1,03,253. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that the telephone has been used by some unscrupulous elements in connivance with some of the employees of the Telephone Department. The attention of the appellant was also drawn towards the misuse of telephone by the adjoining neighbour. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for stay of the recovery of these bills pending this complaint and also restrain the appellant from disconnecting the telephone and directing the appellant to accept Rs. 2,000 in each bill. This matter was contested by the opposite party and the State Commission after hearing the parties, passed the following order: "after considering the aspects briefly dealt with above, we hold that the respondent is not entitled to recover the charges in respect of 28,000 disputed calls pertaining to the bill for the period ending on 25. 9. 1992 and 80,000 calls for the period ending on 25. 11. 1992 which had been lying with them in suspense for a period of more than four years inasmuch as the complaint was instituted on 1. 2. 1993. The consequence is that the complaint partly succeeds and the findings recorded above be implemented within one month. The complainant is entitled to costs Rs. 500. "

Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and also perused the material on record. This Commission has opportunity to deal with similar cases earlier and had relied upon the internal instructions issued by the Department of Telephone, wherein it has been stated that in case there is a sudden spurt in the number of calls being made, the Telephone Department was obliged to inform the user about this sudden spurt in the number of calls. Vide our order dated 26. 9. 2006, we gave opportunity to the learned Counsel for the appellant to produce the copy fo these instructions as also the status of such instructions. The only plea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us was that orally and on phone the respondent/complainant had been informed of sudden spurt. We are neither impressed nor satisfied with such an irresponsible response from a Public Authority.

IT is admitted position as on today that those instructions have not been rescinded despite the fact that the telephone exchanges have gone electronic and also there is dynamic locking system. It is not in dispute that bill as already enumerated earlier had gone up from Rs. 32,000 to over Rs. 1 lakh in a period of two months. It cannot be read otherwise than to state that this indicated a sudden spurt in the use of phone and there is nothing on record, in whatsoever form, that the respondent/complainant was informed about the sudden spurt in the use of phone which is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. This case has another important ''side''; when the Accounts Officer of the appellant was examined before the State Commission, he could not contradict or confirm that the appellant has detected instances where there had been manipulations pertaining to the STD of a particular subscriber. It is also admitted by him that the bills of the complainant were still lying in suspense since 24. 2. 1993 and investigation was still pending. It is important to note that the bills in question related to period ending on 25. 11. 1992. After lapse of considerable time, neither the investigation was completed nor any view taken on the complaints filed by the complainant.

BE that as it may, the non-complying of its own instructions on the subject of sudden spurt is a clear case of deficiency. It could be that perhaps in order to cover-up, the investigation was kept pending and the amount was kept under suspense and the instructions have not been produced before us nor has any evidence been produced before us that they complied with and followed the instructions on the subject. All this cumulatively is a case of grave ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this appeal. This appeal has no merit, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.