UPPMANDALIYA ABHIYANTA, DOOR SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. vs Devi Dutt

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli, whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and it was directed that the bills be realized at the rate of Rs. 500/- per bill.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant has got a telephone No. 61578 in his name. It is alleged that the bills of 11.9.1999, 11.11.1999, 11.3.2000, 11.5.2000, 11.7.2000, 11.11.2000, 11.1.2001 and 11.3.2001 were sent to him with excessive charges. THE complainant demanded the details from the Divisional Engineer, but in reply he was informed that since his bills have not been paid his telephone has been disconnected on 26.3.2001. He was further informed that there was no facility of giving details in the exchange, therefore, details cannot be given. It is said that because of not furnishing the details, the bills could not be deposited in time. THE telephone of the complainant is in the main market and he has suffered financial loss for dis-connection. THE complainant sent a notice but it was not attended to. THErefore, the complaint was filed. The telephone department filed the written statement and alleged that there was no facility of furnishing the details and, therefore, the details could not be given. The connection was disconnected because the arrears were not deposited. The learned Forum by application of rule of thumb directed that the bills deposited be curtailed to the extent that an average bill of Rs. 500/- be charged.

Being aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Since there was no facility of giving the details at the exchange because this was not an electronic exchange, it was on the hillside, since the department could not give the details, therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service due to this.

THE complainant has not alleged whether there was STD facility in his telephone or not. He has not alleged any metering defect or misuse of his telephone. In view of the various judgments given by the National Commission, the learned Forum has got no jurisdiction to curtail the bill by application of rule of thumb unless there is any allegation of metering defect or misuse. It is also supported by the ruling reported in G.M., Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Gulshan Rai, II (1991) CPJ 158, where the District Forum has ordered that the complainant should be directed to pay on the basis of the highest calls made during the last 6 months, the order was held to be not justified. It was further held in this ruling that the telephone was with STD facility and was being used for commercial purposes. It was emphasized that the calls on the telephone used by professionals are not made on particular pattern, but according to the work. It was for the respondent to show that during the specific period, for which he has made grievance, there was no such load because it was within his knowledge. It has not been said anywhere in the complaint that there was no such load on his telephone during the period of three bills.

IN the ruling in District Manager, Telephone v. Niti Saran, I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR, it has specifically been held that where the bills are said to be excessive, the telephone department rebuts the suggestion to inflated bills, the Forums are not legally justified in estimating by application of rule of thumb the precise number of calls in particular period of time unless there was adequate evidence to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been any misuse of any particular telephone by the employees of the department. IN the ruling in Divisional Manager, Telephone, Lucknow v. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknow, II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC), the National Commission has held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no power to fix the number of calls which the Forum considers as reasonable. It is the complainant who has to prove that there was some defect in the metering equipment or the calls were manipulated. In the ruling in Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa v. Mrs. Sheela H.N. Gunekar, I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC), the National Commission has again confirmed this view and held that the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to reduce the bills on average basis. In view of what has been said above the complaint was fit to be dismissed and the order and appeal to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26.2.2003 is hereby quashed. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.