U.P. PANDEY vs SATNAM SINGH CHAWLA

THIS Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission allowing the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of District Forum only partly allowing the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant had a telephone connection at his residence for which he was paying regular bills, till for the period 1.10.1989 to 1.4.1990, he got three high value bi-monthly bills for Rs. 30,050/-, Rs. 14,920/-, Rs. 5,330/- and Rs. 5,961/- to which the complainant protested. The respondent after some discussions/correspondence reduced the number of calls and revised the Bill to Rs. 18,760/-, Rs. 3,125/-, Rs. 2,785/- with no reduction in the last bill. Complainant not being satisfied with the reliefs and alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents, filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent of directing the respondent to restore the telephone connection after completing all the formalities. On an appeal filed by the complainant and after hearing both the parties, State Commission directed the petitioners to revise the telephone bills on the basis of highest telephone bill during the last six months plus 10% for the relevant period, restore connection on payment of these bills and payment of cost assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. It is against this order that the Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Aggarwal that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Telephone was working all right and the bills are based on correct readings. The State Commission erred in directing payment of Bill on average basis which has no rationale. In similar cases, this Commission has referred the case for arbitration under Section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act and at best this is what ought to have been done in this case. Concession given to the complainant by way of reduction in the number of calls during the disputed period should not be taken as admission of deficiency. It was done as a matter of grace. The order of the State Commission need to be set aside and petition be allowed. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Khanna, learned Counsel for the complainant that it need to be seen as per past billing that Bills never exceeded around Rs. 2,000/- or so. There has been no occasion-social or otherwise - resulting in increase in calls and concomitant to such high bills. It is the duty of the petitioner to take immediate cognizance whenever there is unusual spurt in the Bills. Presenting such high bills when they are not warranted, itself is a deficiency. The order of the State Commission is very well reasoned and detailed; no interference in the order of the State Commission is called for.

ON perusal of the material on record and on hearing the arguments advanced by the parties we find that average bills before the period in dispute ranged between Rs. 620/- and Rs. 2,355/- for the bi-monthly billing cycle. There is a sudden spurt in the billing cycle of 1.8.1989 amounting to Rs. 36,115/-. Instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of Directions vide its order No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.1986 are relevant here. Para 5 of these instructions provides as under : 5. Advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint. 5.1 Detailed instructions have been issued separately in regard to watching the meter readings of various subscribers and action to be taken on them.

5.2 These broadly consist of- (a) Meter readings being taken every fortnight; (b) Identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt; and (c) In case of such sudden spurts being notice placing the telephone line on observation and deputing responsible staff to the subscriber''s premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts.

5.5 As far as possible all telephone lines showing a sudden spurt should be put on observation. For this purpose immediate steps must be taken to provide suitable observation equipment in all exchanges having STD facilities, so that once a spurt is noticed, the line is actually put on observation.

5.6 In case of sudden spurt being noticed, a suitable officer should be deputed to inspect the installation as well as to ensure that there was no special occasion, which could have given rise to a genuine spurt.

We do not see any action on above lines taken by the petitioners which itself is a deficiency in service. There are detailed instructions on "investigation of an excess billing complaint."

PARA 6.7 of these instructions is as follows : 6.7 It is possible that the excess bill exceeds the previous bi-monthly bills by substantial amounts. In such cases, temporary relief to the subscriber by way of issuing a split bill may be justified. As already prescribed a split bill may be issued if the bi-monthly bill for local call charges exceeds double the maximum amount of the previous 6 bi-monthly bills for local call charges. The split bill for local call charges should be limited to the average of local calls billed in the proceeding six-monthly period plus 10% thereof and should be issued with a clear statement that this is purely provisional bill pending further investigation into the excess billing complaint and it after investigation the Department comes to the conclusion that the original bill is justified, the subscriber will have to pay the full bill or as may be determined by the competent authority ? There is nothing on record to show that the complaint made by the complainant with regard to higher bills was investigated as per procedure laid down in these instructions. State Commission, in our view, have followed in spirit the purport of these instructions. There has to be a limit to arbitrariness. Complaint is made, it is not investigated. In our view, the petitioner failed completely to notice the spurt in use of telephone and to take followup action as per their own instructions. It will be correct to state that this Commission has been sending the cases involving quantum dispute for arbitration under Clause 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act but we also see the time-frame in this case. The period of dispute in the instant case is the year 1989 almost thirteen long years ago. No useful purpose would be served by suggesting action as per Section 7(B) at this stage. Order of the State Commission is only a reflection of spirit of the instructions on the subject. We find no merit in the petition, hence dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.