Union of India vs H.S.YESHANTANI

THIS appeal has been filed by Union of India, through Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Jaipur and other officials of the Telecom. Department against the order of the District Forum, Kota dated 6.1.93 quashing telephone bill in respect of the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90 of local calls and directing the appellants to send a revised telephone bill to the complainant on the basis of average of preceding three months and further to pay Rs. l, 000/-as compensation to the complainant.

THE complainant is a Dental Surgeon and runs a Clinic in first floor in Purani Sabji Mandi, Kota. He had a telephone at his Clinic bearing No. 24568. On 14.11.90 the complainant filed a complainant before the District Forum, Kota alleging that the telephone bill dated 16.10.90 which he received with respect to local calls for the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90 for Rs. 5416/- was excessive. In para 7 of the complaint, the complainant mentioned that the telephone bills in respect of local calls during preceding years and other periods were quite low in comparison to the telephone bill for the local calls for the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90. According to the complainant, he did not use the telephone for local calls during the said period to this extent and the telephone bill was false and had been sent to him to cause him loss and mental distress. THE complainant went to the office of the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Kota and Sub-Division Officer, Telephones, Kota and drew their attention to the above fact, but they always asked the complainant to deposit the amount of the bill failing which the telephone connection was threatened to be disconnected. THE complainant, therefore, filed the complaint praying that the Opposite Parties-appellants may be restrained from recovering the amount mentioned in the said telephone and from disconnecting the telephone and further to pay to the complainant Rs. 6,000/- as costs. The version of the Opposite Parties - appellants was that the bill in question was sent for a correct amount according to the use of the telephone made by the complainant. Upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, necessary investigation - internal as well as external - was carried out and no defect was found in the metering equipment or in external line. It was also pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer and remedy also lay before the complainant under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.

The District Forum held that the Opposite Parties-appellant had not carried out necessary investigations as contemplated in Departmental Circulars dated 29.10.84, 6.1.86 and 9.4.86. It also held that the preceding bills received by the complainant were for a very low amount and the bill in question was very much excessive. Because the Opposite Party did not pay any attention to the complaint made by the complainant it was held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and passed the abovementioned order. The Opposite Parties have come in appeal against the order of the District Forum. The complainant-respondent did not appear despite service. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsels for the appellants and perused the record. It is clear from the various telephone bills produced by the complainant that in respect of the period from 26.1.85 to 25..3.85, the complainant had made only 70 local calls. With respect to the periods from 26.9.84 to 25.11.84, there were only 57 local calls. During the period from 26.1.87 to 25.3.87 there were only 90 local calls. During the period from 26.1.89 to 25.3.89, there were 130 local calls. During the period from 11.4.90 to 26.6.90 the telephone bill for local calls was Rs. 20/-. By producing these telephone bills, the complainant showed that during the preceding years and periods mentioned above the number of local calls made by the complainant were very much low. However in the telephone bill for the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90, 5130 local calls were mentioned and chargeable local calls as 4970 and the bill for local calls was Rs. 5215/-. The Opposite Parties have not denied these previous billings in respect of local calls.

IT is also important to note that in their version the Opposite Parties admitted that a complaint regarding excessive billing was made by the complainant and they had carried out the investigation. IT appears to us that the case was cursorily conducted by the Opposite Parties. In the complaint, as it was filed, the complainant had by mistake mentioned his telephone number as 24658 while in fact the number of his telephone was 24568 and not 24658. The Opposite Parties filed M.S. report and indoor plaint dated 30.3.92 with respect to telephone number 24658 which was not of the complainant. IT may be mentioned that the complainant by an application dated 29.6.92 got the complaint amended by mentioning his correct telephone number as 24568. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties filed another report-dated 20.6.92 with respect to telephone number 24568. IT is clear from this very report that it was prepared on 24.6.92 after the filing of the. Complaint and when the complainant sought to correctly mention the telephone number. This report mentions fortnightly readings from 25.3.90 to 25.1.91 in respect of the telephone of the complainant. The fortnightly reading statement goes to show that during the preceding periods from 25.3.90 to 25.5.90, the number of local calls made were 140. During the period from 25.5.90 to 25.7.90, the number of local calls were 130. During the subsequent periods from 25.9.90 to 25.11.90, the number of local calls was 1780 and from 25.11.90 to 25.1.91, the number of local calls was 80 only. IT was only with respect to the period from 25.7.90 to 25.9.90 that 5130 local calls are mentioned. From this fortnightly statement, it is clear that there was sudden spurt in the number of local calls, only during this period. So far as M.S. report of indoor plant dated 24.6.90 produced by the Opposite Parties, it is clear that this report was prepared subsequent to the filing of the complaint. IT may be mentioned that according to the departmental circulars, fortnightly meter reading was not enough. Reference may be made particularly to the departmental instructions No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.86 wherein it was made clear that the Telecom. department should identify all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt. In case of such sudden spurts being noticed, the telephone line should be placed on observation and responsible staff should be deputed to the subscriber''s premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts. IT was emphasized in the said circular that in order to establish the Department''s credibility and to satisfactorily investigate complaints about excess billing, it was necessary that these steps were taken conscientiously. IT was noticed that while meter readings are being taken regularly every fortnight, but all cases of spurts were not being brought out. IT is clear in the present case that despite noticing sudden spurts in the number of local calls during the period from 26.7.90 to 25.9.90, the Opposite Parties did not place the line on observation and did not depute responsible staff to the subscriber''s premises for checking. As already stated, mere taking fortnightly readings was not sufficient unless checking of the metering equipment and external examination was made when such sudden spurts are noticed. No such investigation was carried out by the Opposite Parties despite the fact that admittedly there were sudden spurts and the number of local calls had tremendously increased. Failure to make necessary investigation as emphasised by the Telecom. Department itself by circulars is deficiency in service. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum, Kota had no jurisdiction to quash the telephone bill and to direct the appellants to send a revised bill on the basis of average. This contention is correct. As already stated, the complaint was filed on 14.11.90 and such directions could not be made. However, the District Forum could award compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service. We are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- be awarded to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

WE, therefore, partly allow this appeal and modify the order of the District Forum, Kota in this way that the Opposite Parties-appellants would pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Parties will bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.