Y.KRISHAN vs M.T.N.L.

THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the District Forum-III dated the 29th December, 1998, passed in Complaint Case No. 922/97 entitled Shri Y. Krishan & Anr. v. MTNL.

THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum averring therein that he is the subscriber of telephone No. 6894175 and had received a bill for the billing cycle 1.10.1996 for the amount of Rs. 2,945/-, pertaining to the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996. THE total number of calls, shown in the said bill, were 2124 out of which local calls were shown to be 1840 which were excessive as compared to the previous bills received by the appellant/complainant. It was further stated by the complainant that he had lodged a complaint with regard to the said bill dated 1.10.1996 with the opposite party vide his letter dated 17.10.1996, followed by several reminders, but no reply was received from the end of the opposite party in response thereto. It was further stated by the appellant/complainant that his complaint regarding excess billing was not investigated by the respondent in accordance with the rules prescribed for investigating such complaints and as such there has been gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Another grievance of the appellant/complainant, as stated in his complaint, was that the bills for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and from 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997, did not contain the details of STD/ISD calls or local calls made from his telephone and as such, he was unable to check whether the same were excessive or not and that the respondent, despite requests, had failed to supply the said details. It was, therefore, prayed by the appellant/complainant, in his complaint, that directions be issued to opposite party to revise the bills and the local call charges for the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996 be restricted to 300 calls only and call charges for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and from 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 should be limited to 659 local call charges only on average basis. THE appellant/complainant had further prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,500/- on account of mental harassment and agony as well as cost of the proceedings. In the reply filed before the District Forum, the respondent/M.T.N.L. had denied the contentions of the appellant/complainant that the bill for the period from 16.7.1995 to 15.9.1996 was excessive as regards local calls. On the contrary, it had been stated that the respondent had complied with departmental instructions and after proper investigation, the bill dated 1.10.1996, issued to the appellant/complainant, as found to be correct. The respondent/M.T.N.L. had also denied the remaining allegations of the appellant/complainant and had prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

The learned District Forum, however, dismissed the said complaint vide order dated 29.12.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal. The respondent was duly served and put in his appearance through Mr. K.P. Sunder Rao, Advocate who filed his reply to the present appeal. The appellant/complainant has also submitted a rejoinder to the said reply.

WE have gone through the documents/material on record. WE have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The short controversy before us in this appeal is whether the bill for the period from 16.7.1995 to 15.7.1996 was excessive as regards local calls shown therein. The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant was away for the period from 1.8.1996 to 20.8.1996 and also the telephone remained out of order frequently during the said period for which the appellant had lodged complaints with the local telephone exchange of the respondent/M.T.N.L. Further, on the basis of the average number of calls made during the preceding six bi-monthly billing periods, the number of local calls shown to have been made from the telephone of the appellant/complainant in the above-mentioned bill, are excessive. We have perused the data provi-ded by the appellant of the preceding six bi-monthly bills from the period 16.7.1995 to 15.9.1996. The same is being reproduced as under : S. No. Period Total No. of calls (net) No. of STD calls No. of Local calls 1. 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996 2124 284 1840 2. 16.5.1996 to 15.7.1996 778 66 712 3. 16.3.1996 to 15.5.1996 1107 738 369 4. 16.1.1996 to 15.3.1996 890 422 468 5. 16.11.1995 to 15.1.1996 1662 915 747 6. 16.9.1995 to 15.11.1995 1639 497 1142 7. 16.7.1995 to 15.9.1995 808 293 515

IT may be seen from the above data that the number of local calls varied from 369 to 1142 during the preceding billing periods and as such, the local calls in the disputed bill, shown as 1840, do not appear to be excessive especially when the appellant has himself admitted that the STD/ISD calls shown in the said bill for the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996, are correct and has not challenged the same. Furthermore, the respondent in its reply to the present appeal, has clearly stated that during the period the complainant alleges to have been out of station, i.e. from 1.8.1996 to 20.8.1996, the fortnightly meter reading showed only 9 calls. The appellant has also not placed any evidence/material on record regarding his telephone being out of order during the said period, to support his contention that the local calls shown in the impugned bill are excessive and could not have been made from his telephone. Therefore, considering that the version of facts as stated by the appellant coincides with the calls recorded by the fortnightly meter as well as the fact that part of the same bill has been admitted to be correct by the appellant so far as it re-ates to STD/ISD calls, it cannot be held that the impugned bill was excessive or incorrect as regards local calls reflected therein and, therefore, needs to be quashed. Further the relief claimed by the appellant in this prayer clause of his complaint is with regard to revision of his telephone bills on the basis of average calls recorded in the preceding bi-monthly bills. Against the said contention of the appellant, the respondent has relied upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Union of India v. Satyanarayan Lal, reported as III (1993) CPJ 335 (NC), wherein it has been held that the determination of bills on an average basis is illegal and the Consumer FORA are not justified in directing the MTNL to revise the bills on the said basis. A similar view was expressed by the National Commission in the case of U.S. Dalal v. Telecom District Manager, Telephone Exchange, Rohtak, Haryana, reported as II (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 2447 (NS). "We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that in the light of the decisions rendered by this Commission in District Manager, Telephone & Ors., Chandigarh v. Niti Sarin, I (1991) CPJ 48=R.P. No. 67 of 1990 reported in 1994 (2) Consumer 793 (NS); Telecom District Manager, Patna v. Kalyanpur Cement, (1991) CPJ 286=R.P. No. 44 of 1990-1994 (2) Consumer 878 (NS) and Divisional Manager, Telephones v. Madhu Enterprises, II (1991) CPJ 579=1994 (2) Consumer 904 (NS), the District Forum, Rohtak was perfectly right in rejecting the prayer of the complainant that a direction should be issued to the Telephones Department to reduce the amounts demanded in the disputed bills by adopting the average number of calls metered during six bi-monthly billing periods immediately preceding the disputed bills as the basis of computation."

(Emphasis supplied) In another decision entitled Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa v. Mrs. Sheela H.N. Gaunekar, I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC)=1986-99 Consumer 4958 (NS), the National Commission has reiterated the above view and has held : "The District Forum has directed the petitioner to calculate the telephone bills for the period from 25.1.1992 to 25.9.1992 on the basis of average of past one year preceding 26.1.1992 and this in our view is not legally permissible. This Commission has repeatedly held that the Redressal Forums are not legally justified to do so unless there is adequate evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial to show that the metering equipment was defective or there has been tampering with or misuse of telephone by the employees of the Department."

(Emphasis supplied)

THEREFORE, in view of the above said settled law, the relief, as prayed for by the appellant in his complaint, cannot be granted to him.

REGARDING other two bills for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and from 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997, the only grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the details of the STD/ISD calls and local calls have not been shown separately and that his written request for supplying the details made to the respondent have not received any positive response. This in itself would not constitute deficiency in service on the part of opposite party unless there is a specific allegation of the bills being incorrect or excessive. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the District Forum is upheld to the extent that the appellant has not been able to prove that the bill for the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996 is excessive, though the reasoning given by the learned District Forum is more with regard to the ISD/STD calls and as such, is not relevant to the present dispute of the appellant which is restricted to local calls only. However, since we have already held that no fault can be found with the disputed bill, the appellant/complainant is not entitled to the relief as claimed. As regards the remaining two bills pertaining to the period 16.9.1996 to 5.11.1996 and 16.11.1996 to 15.1.1997 are concerned, we may direct the opposite party to supply the necessary details to the appellant/complainant, if the said data is available with the opposite party.

The present appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of with the above directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal disposed of.