UNION OF INDIA vs DHANJIBHAI K.

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the Union of India represented by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot against the judgment of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing First Appeal No. 57 of 1991 by setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the Telephone Department, Rajkot to issue fresh bills to the respondent herein based on "average of bills of previous six months" and to refund to the Complainant the excess amount, if any, found to have been realised from him.

IN the complaint petition filed before the District Forum, the grievance put forward by the Complainant (respondent herein) pertained to the two billing periods from 26.2.1990 to 25.4.1990 and from 26.4.1990 to 25.6.1990. According to the Complainant, he had been served with exhorbitant bills for sums of Rs. 2,112/- and Rs. 1,122/- respectively for the said two billing periods even though he had actually made only very few calls from his telephone No. 33374. It was the Complainant''s case that he had reason to believe that during certain periods when his telephone was found to be dead the line had been diverted and wrongfully connected with the telephones of one Chimanbhai Maganbhai Patel and one Jyoti Guest House, with the result that there was misuse of his telephone leading to the possibility of huge bills. Since the complaint made by him to the General Manager, Telephones had not brought forth any useful result, he had approached the District Forum seeking the relief of refixing the amount of the bills based on the average number of calls made during the previous six months in which case the bill for each billing period would work out only to Rs. 350/-. The District Forum, after considering the evidence adduced in the case, held that the Complainant had miserably failed to establish any of the allegations made against the Opposite Party and hence he was not entitled to be granted any relief. Aggrieved by the said decision rendered by the District Forum, the Complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission at Ahmedabad. When notice of the appeal was taken out to the respondent, namely, the Union of India through the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot, the said notice was received back with the postal endorsement that it had been refused by the addressee. In consequence, the State Commission had to decide the appeal ''ex-parte'' after hearing only the appellant (Complainant). The said hearing of the appeal culminated in the order dated 30th November, 1992, now sought to be revised.

IT may be mentioned that before approaching this Commission with this Revision Petition, the revision petitioner herein had filed Civil Application No. 4 of 1993 before the State Commission praying for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.11.1992 by disputing the correctness of the postal endorsement that the notice had been refused by the Accounts Officer. That application was dismissed by the State Commission by an order dated 29th July, 1993, wherein the plea taken by the Department that the notice had not been refused by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot was rejected by the State Commission. It was pointed out in the order that the party who had figured as the respondent before the District Forum was the Union of India represented by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot and the said officer had also entered appearance before the District Forum and made his submissions. The notice of the appeal issued by the office of the State Commission was correctly addressed to the Union of India. Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot but nevertheless the said notice was received back with the postal endorsement that it was refused by the addressee when it was presented for delivery at the Office of the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot. The State Commission did not see any reason to doubt the correctness of the endorsement made on the postal envelope containing the notice. In view of the said finding of fact and also on the further ground that the Consumer Protection Act does not provide for any review or any order which had been already passed, the State Commission rejected the aforesaid application made by the Department.

WE are satisfied that the finding recorded by the State Commission that there was, in fact, a refusal of the notice of the appeal by the addressee namely, the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot is perfectly correct and valid. We must express in the strongest terms our condemnation of the highly objectionable conduct of the Accounts Officer concerned in refusing to accept a notice issued to him by the State Commission. It is noteworthy that the envelope in which the notice was sent had carried the name of the office from which it was despatched and it showed that it had been sent from the Office of the State Commission. Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Considering the fact that it was only because of the wrongful conduct of the Accounts Officer in refusing to accept the notice from the State Commission resulting in his remaining ex-parte in the appeal that the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the Department, we will be fully justified in summarily rejecting this appeal on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission will not be exercised in favour of a party who has been guilty of showing such grave discourtesy towards the State Commission. However, since we find that this case involves the settlement of a principle which is of great interest to the Department, we refrain from adopting such a strict attitude and propose to proceed to dispose of the Revision Petition on the merits. Suitable directions will of course be given as to payment of costs by the Revision Petitioner by way of recompense for the objectionable conduct of its officer. usal of the order passed by the State Commission discloses that the State Commission had not recorded any categorical finding that there was any defect in the concerned metering equipment or any misuse or diversion of the Complainants line for its being utilised by others. 7. The direction given to the Department to issue fresh bills based on the average of bills of the Complainant for the previous six months is clearly opposed to the principles laid down by this Commission in several reported rulings commencing with Telecom District Manager, Patna v. Kalyanpur Cement - R.P. No. 44 of 1990, (1991) CPJ 286, District Manager Telephone and Ors., Chandigarh v. Niti Saran - R.P. No. 61 of 1990 reported in I(1991) CPJ 48 and Telecom District Engineer,Dharmashala v. Pran Nath Mahajan - F.A. No. 66 of 1991, 1993 1 CTJ 200 etc. In several subsequent cases the aforesaid rulings have been followed. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained and it requires to be set aside. The appeal is remanded to the State Commission for fresh disposal in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid rulings after recording clear findings on the relevant points at issue. The State Commission shall afford a full and fair opportunity to both sides for placing all their submissions before it. 8. In view of what has been stated above, concerning the highly objectionable conduct on the part of the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot in refusing to accept the notice of the appeal issued to him by the State Commission, we direct that the Revision Petitioner herein shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of costs of this revision petition. We further direct that the General Manager, Telephones having jurisdiction over the Rajkot area shall conduct an enquiry and determine who amongst the employees of the Rajkot Telephones was responsible for refusing and returning the notice issued by the State Commission when the same was tendered at the Accounts Office of the Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot by the postman. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- ordered as costs to the respondent under this order shall be recovered from the erring employee concerned who is found responsible or refusing the notice and the amount so recovered shall be credited to the funds of the Department so that Public funds shall not be expended to make amends for the misconduct of an employee. The action taken in compliance with these directions shall be reported by the General Manager, Telephones, to this Commission within three months from today. 9. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above.