Union of India vs JOGINDER MOULDING INDUSTRIES

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Ambala whereby the appellant Department has been directed to submit an amended bill for telephone charges as against the earlier bill dated the 15th of April, 1991 which was hotly put in dispute by the respondent-complainant.

THE telephone in question being No. 29712 is a residential one installed at 1295, Mukherji Park, Jagadhri in the house of one of the partners of the complainant concern. It was the complainant''s case that invariably they used to get telephone bills varying from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 2000/- However, to their surprise they first received a bill dated the 15th of February, 1991 for as many as 2910 calls and the amount of Rs. 3070/- . THE complainant immediately protested to the Department, but to no avail. To crown it all, the subsequent bill dated the 15th of April, 1991 for the period from 16th of February, 1991 to 15th of April, 1991 indicated a fabulous amount of Rs. 46,991/- for allegedly 42940 calls. It was the case that by no stretch of imagination, there can be such a heavy bill for a residential telephone. This was particularly highlighted against the previous pattern of calling, not exceeding at the highest Rs. 2,000/- for many periods of two months. Being unable to pay the exorbitant charges demanded the telephone connection was disconnected by the Department. Aggrieved thereby the complainants knocked at the door of the District Forum. In the written statement filed by the appellants, the plea taken was that the respondent had earlier raised bills at a higher label and one such example was for Rs. 3070/- which was the highest paid so far. It was also the Department''s case that on a complaint being made to them the complainant was asked to pay a provisional bill of Rs. 13,919/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 33,000/- was kept in abeyance till the investigation of the complaint was over. It was highlighted that the telephone possessed the S.T.D facility and the charged amount was due to an excessive use thereof.

In support of the complainant firm''s case Shri Wazir Singh, a partner thereof stepped into the witness box and fully corroborated the case set up by it. It was firmly alleged that there was a patent defect in the metering system which has recorded abnormally high local calls which were wholly disproportionate to the pattern of calling, if not virtually impossible for being made within such short span. On the other hand, the appellant Department placed on record the meter reading report and the documents, Annexure R-l to R-4. The charges were sought to be justified as having been raised on the basis of actual calls made. It would appear that the complaint made to the Department continued to hang fire without an expeditious decision, thereon.

THE District Forum examined the matter in considerable depth. It analysed the fortnightly recording of all calls for the disputed period for the bill dated the 15th of April, 1991. On the basis of documentary evidence on the record, it found that it indicated an absurdly high level of calling for three consecutive fortnights to the tune of more, than 1000 calls per day which on the very face of it appeared to be incorrect. Noticing the plain possibility of wrong metering under extreme conditions, the. District Forum came to the conclusion that it was a clear case of defective metering which had not been adequately met by the Department. Whilst holding in the Department''s favour that one of the. bills dated the 15th of February, 1991 for Rs. 3070/- did not merit interference, the same was up-held. However, with regard to the bill recording the excessive gross calls of as many as 42940, a relief was granted and an amended bill was directed to be submitted. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to lay any serious challenge to the detailed conclusions arrived at in the order under appeal. It was somewhat half-heartedly submitted that the calls with regard to a period subsequent to the dispute has also been taken into consideration. Broadly it was alleged that the onus was on the complainant and he. had not been able to discharge the same.

WE are unable to find any modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. The District Forum had made an in depth analysis of the whole matter in which no serious infirmity could be pointed out and an over-all appraisal of the case, the District Forum seems to be right that on a residential telephone recording of as many as 1000 calls each day over three fortnights seems somewhat suspicious against the background of the earlier pattern. Keeping in mind the past history of the calling pattern of the subscriber, the District Forum had inferred from Ex. R-1, the observation report that there was surely something wrong with the metering system. In scaling down the unusual spurt of calling, the District Forum has taken a balanced view which does not call for any interference. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to find any merit in this appeal, which must fail and is hereby dismissed. We would, however leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.