UNION OF INDIA vs H.S.YESHANTANI

THIS revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 23.3.95 of the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur modifying the order of the District Forum dated 6.1.93. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum, Kota and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

WE may briefly notice the facts. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum; Kota alleging that the telephone bill dated 16th October, 1990 for the period 26th July, 1990 to 25th September, 1990 for Rs. 5,416/-received by him was excessive. He had asserted in his complaint that bill in respect of local calls during the preceding years and periods were quite low in comparison to the disputed bill. He further alleged that he did not use the telephone for local calls during the said period to this extent that it could have been for such amount charged in the disputed bill and, therefore, the bill was false and had been sent to him to cause him loss and mental distress. The complainant filed the complaint and prayed for restraining the opposite parties from recovering the amount mentioned in the said bill and from disconnecting the telephone and further claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. The District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because they did not pay any attention to the complaints made to them. The District Forum cancelled the bill in dispute and called upon the opposite parties to assess the bill on the basis of average local calls of past three months and issue the revised bill to the complainant. The complainant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. The State Commission, however, came to the conclusion that District Forum has no jurisdiction to direct the opposite parties to send a revised bill on the basis of average but enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and have also gone through the records of the case with the help of the Counsel for the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner herein before the District Forum that the impugned bill was sent for a correct amount according to the use of the telephone made by the complainant, that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant, necessary investigations, internal as well as external, were carried out and no defect was found in the metering equipment or any external line and that the complainant was not a consumer and remedy of the complainant lie under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act. It is also pointed out that admittedly the complainant is having STD on his telephone and the telephone is installed in the commercial place i.e. at the clinic of the Doctor and as such the calls billed in the impugned bill were normal. The State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to question the bill and to ask the petitioner herein to send a revised bill. The State Commission however, had no jurisdiction to award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on the mere suspicion that the impugned bill is excessive as otherwise there is no foundation to rest the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The State Commission has not spelled out as to what is the deficiency in service for which the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded. The State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction illegally by arbitrarily granting a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ to the complainant.

THE impugned order of the State Commission dated 23.3.95 as well as of the District Forum dated 6.1.93 are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. It will be open to the complainant to seek his remedy under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.