Union of India vs BHATIA AND COMPANY

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.1994 whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (the Forum), cancelling the bills for Rs. 68,829/- and Rs. 21,270/-, issued by the appellant to the respondent consumer, directed the appellant to prepare the relevant bills afresh on the basis of average calls. The Forum further directed the appellant to replace the old telephone No. 20043 for the new telephone number 23522 at the residence of the respondent.

THE relevant facts are these : M/s. Bhatia and Company (respondent complainant) is the sole proprietorship of one Shri J.C. Bhatia and is engaged in business activities at Kota : Shri Bhatia besides having a number of telephones at his business establishment, had telephone No. 20043 at this residence. But the telephone at his residence was not having the STD facility. THE STD facility was available to him at telephone Nos. 25314, 25308 and possibily on 25969, installed at his business establishment. He requested the appellant''s office at Kota to supply him the STD facility on his telephone No. 20043 at his residence. An application in that behalf (Ex. 4) was submitted by him to Divisional Engineer, Department of Telephones, Kota, Rajasthan on 2.11.1992. THE Department supplied the STD facility to him at his residence. However the process of providing STD facility to Shri Bhatia at his residence involved the change in the number of the telephone. The case of the respondent Company as put forth by him before the Forum was that although STD facility in the telephone at his residence was provided to him by the appellant w.e.f. 11.11.1992 but the number of his telephone from 20043 to 23522 was changed without any notice to him and for the first time a bill of Rs. 68,829/- was given to him on 20.4.1993, payable by 1.5.1993. His grievance further was that the bill was defective in several respects and that bill pertaining to telephone No. 20043 was also delivered to him for the same period. He attributed deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in sending him a bill for Rs. 68,829/- in respect of phone No. 23522 without giving any prior intimation to him about the change in the number of the telephone at his residence. It was also complained that the appellant further committed deficiency in service by disconnecting his telephone at the residence. He, therefore, prayed that the old telephone No. 20043 be restored, the STD facility on telephone No. 23522 be withdrawn, the bill for Rs. 68,829/- be cancelled and an enquiry in respect of perparing a bill for excessive amount be made and he be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation.

The case put forth by the appellant was that the indicator (of the telephone installed at the residence of the respondent) was changed from 20043 to 23522 as per procedure and an information of bringing about such change in the indicator was duly given to the respondent on telephone, that the STD facility was provided to the respondent on his own request and that the bi-monthly bills for the period from 16.11.1992 to 15.1.1993 for Rs. 32,528/- and for the period from 16.1.1993 to 15.3.1993 for Rs. 36,126/- (Exs. Dl and D2 respectively) were duly issued to the respondent prior to the due dates but since the respondent did not pay the aforesaid amount a final bill was prepared for Rs. 68,829/- and the respondent was required to pay the aforesaid amount by 11.5.1993 and on his failing to do that the facility of the telephone was withdrawn from the residence of the respondent. It was further averred that the respondent was heavy user of STD and on an investigation having been carried out in his case it was found that during a period of 8 days the respondent had made 4253 STD calls as against 12 local calls only from the telephone at his residence. It was thus submitted by the appellant that it was not at all guilty of rendering deficient services to the appellant. Instead, the appellant was in the habit of pressurising the Departmental officials by making false and frivolous complaints.

THE Forum making reference to the relevant provisions in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1855 and the Rules made thereunder as also certain instructions issued by the appellant Department held that the department should have made thorough enquiry into the grievance of the respondent relating to excessive billing. THE Forum held the appellant guilty of rendering deficient services to the respondent and, therefore, disposed of his complaint in the manner stated above. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length. We thoroughly examined the material available on the record of the Forum. In our opinion the approach of the Forum in the present case has not been correct and, therefore, interference by us in the impugned order is called for.

IT was not disputed before us that the respondent is running his business at Kota at sufficiently large scale maintaining three or four telephones at his business establishment. IT is not in dispute that he was having the facility of telephone No. 20043 at his residence and on 2.11.1992 he had applied for the facility of STD on that telephone. Such facility, as is admitted to the respondent, was provided to him w.e.f. 16.11.1992. The respondent did not dispute that he availed of the STD facility on the telephone at his residence. Obviously he had come to know of the fact that the STD facility has been provided to him by the appellant as per his request. The appellant has successfully referred to Exhibits Dl and D2 the two bills issued by it for the period from 16.11.1992 to 15.1.1993 and from 16.1.1993 to 15.3.1993 respectively. In both these bills trunk calls were shown at 29960. In Ex. D2 the local calls were shown at 33230. The description of the meter reading has also been given in Exs. Dl and D2. IT was however significant in both the bills that no meter rent had been charged therein. The third bill Ex. 3 which is claimed to be excessive and which was challenged by the respondent before the Forum and the Forum cancelled the Scheme, mentions about the two bills Exs. Dl and D2 and a reference to the amount of arrears has been made therein. Exhibit 3 thus mentions the total amount demanded by the appellant from the respondent in respect to the telephone installed at his residence. As the common experience shows, changes in indicator of the telephone is usually communicated to the subscriber, by the operators, on the telephone itself. We fail to accept that the respondent had never received the bi-monthly bills Exs. Dl and D2 during the relevant period. The respondent was a busy business man. His conduct has to be appreciated with reference to the nature of work he was doing. He had three or four telephones at his commercial establishment where he was having STD facilities. He does not complain that he did not receive the telephone bills pertaining to the telephones installed at his commercial establishment. There could have been no good reasons for the appellant Department to have not sent the bill for the telephone installed at his residence as per practice of the Department. IT is really strange that on not receiving the bills for the telephone at his residence for about four months, he would not like to know the reason particularly when he was continuously receiving the bills for the telephones at his office. His denial inspires no confidence in us. We, therefore, entertain no doubt that Exs. Dl and D2 had certainly been delivered by the appellant to the respondent before the due dates mentioned therein. The respondent appears to have taken much advantage of the fact and the Forum appears to have allowed itself to be influenced by the argument that for the same period the appellant had issued bills Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 pertaining to telephone No. 20043 to the respondent. From this position the Forum appears to have concluded that the bills Exs. Dl and D2 pertaining to telephone No. 23522 were not correctly drawn. We may point out that the appellant had simply changed the indicator of the telephone installed at the house of the respondent. However, the meter rent was charged in the bills Exs. 1 and 2 drawn in respect of telephone No. 20043. It may be appreciated that no meter rent was charged in the bill Exs. Dl and D2 pertaining to telephone No. 23522. Therefore, simply because bills for the same period showing the rental of the telephone were also drawn in respect of telephone No. 20043, it cannot be said that bills for Telephone No. 23522 were incorrectly drawn by the appellants. Undisputedly the respondent had availed of the STD facility which had been affixed in the indicator of 23522 and not on the indicator, 20043. In so far as the question of over billing or fake billing, showing excessive charges for STD calls in Telephone No. 23522 (indicator number) is concerned, it may be pointed out that the appellant had required the report from its Assistant Engineer Phones in the matter. The Engineer had physically checked and found not only the instrument but also the STD facility in perfect order. A spurt in STD calls was oberved during the period from 4.1.199 to 11.1.1993. During this period the respondent had made as many as 4253 STD calls and only 12 local calls in a period of only 8 days. The Assistant Engineer had given sufficient details of the investigation made by him in that behalf and such details are clearly available on the record of the Forum. The facts found by the Assistant Engineer Phones clearly speak that the respondent was a very heavy user of STD calls and within a period of 8 days he had made as many as 4253 calls from phone installed at his residence.

IN order to be quite sure and specific on the point as to whether the respondent was in the habit of making business calls from his residence we made a comparative study of the numbers contacted by him during the period when he was not having STD facility on telephone No. 20043 and subsequently through the new number 23522. We noted that when the respondent was not having STD facility on his telephone No. 20043 he had made 12 trunk calls from his said telephone at Delhi on telephone numbers 3293407,2525827, 2915212, 2835209. When he obtained the STD facility on his telephone No. 23522 a majority of the calls from the residence were made to Delhi on the telephone numbers given above. This clearly indicates that from his residence the respondent was making STD calls to his client or customers at Delhi or at other places and that was why Exs. Dl and D2 were drawn for above Rs. 32,000/- each, for two months.

AFTER having considered the matter thoroughly we are of the opinion that the rules and the provisions of the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, referred to by the Forum in support of its conclusion, were not material to the adjudication of the issue before it. The appellant is found to have already investigated and enquired into the working of the STD facility at the telephone installed at the residence of the respondent. We have made a comparative study of the business calls made by him through trunk calls on telephone No. 20043 and through STD facility available to him on indicator number 23522 and entertain no doubt that the respondent had in fact availed of such facility. We are not at all impressed by the argument that the change in the indicator of the telephone was not communicated to him by the appellant and hence he was taken by surprise on receipt of the telephone bills for the period of four months. In our opinion the appellant was neither negligent nor had it rendered deficient service to the respondent. Since the respondent had not paid the amount of the bills Exs. D1 and Ex. D2, the appellant was justified in disconnecting the same. The Forum was not at all correct in giving a further relief of Rs. 21,270/- to the respondent, which he had not even claimed such relief in his complaint. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with cost at Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant. Appeal allowed with costs.