ABDUL AZIZ SULEMAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM

THE complainant is a businessman and a Proprietor of M/s. Karnataka Silk Emporium, Bangalore, he also conducts tours annually to Holy Mecca and runs a transport service. .

THE complainant has got six telephone connections, two telephones bearing Nos. 561328 and 565983 installed at his residence, three telephones i.e., 561193, 57893 and 574929 installed at his shop premises and one telephone bearing No. 578136 installed at his transport garage. The complainant has no grievance regarding the billing on telephone bearing No. 574929. His grievance is with regard to other 5 telephones in respect of excess billing by the opposite party from 1988 onwards.

The complainant had STD facility removed for telephone bearing No. 578136 installed in transport garage since from 7-11-1988 as he found excessive billing for the said telephone.

THE complainant further averred that he made complaints to the opposite party on several occasions in the year 1988 and in 1990 regarding the excessive billing for the telephones but the opposite party did not properly enquire into and investigate as required under the telegraphs manual and gave a mechanical reply. The complainant made excess payment as per demand on the above 5 telephones from 1988 to 1990 at Rs. 2,64,329/-. The complainant claimed refund of the said excess amount so collected and also compensation as narrated above.

THE opposite party filed statement of objection and contended that the complainant is a very big businessman. THE bills for the telephones were issued on the basis of the use made and the calls recorded. THEre was no mal-functioning of any meter or misuse of telephones by the employees of the opposite party. The opposite party further averred that all the complainants made by the complainant regarding the excess billing were enquired into and investigated and it was found that there was neither any meter fault nor any misuse by the employees of the opposite party. The opposite party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. The complainant during enquiry examined himself as C.W.1 and got exhibits C-1 to C-104 marked in evidence. Exs. C-7 to C-90 are the telephone bills from 11-2-1988 to 11-12-1990. The opposite party examined R.W.I, the Customer Relations Officer and got exhibits R-l to R- 43 marked in evidence.

AS far as telephone bearing No. 574929 installed in the shop premises is concerned, complainant has no grievance with regard to its billing.

THE grievance of the complainant regarding excessive billing is in respect of 5 telephones i.e., two telephones bearing Nos. 565983 and 561328 installed at his residence, two telephones bearing Nos. 561193 and 578793 installed at his shop premises and one telephone bearing No. 578136 installed in his transport garage, to which STD facility was removed since 7-11-1988. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party by way of excess billing on these five telephones has recovered from the complainant during 1988 to 1990 a sum of Rs. 2,64,329/- as detailed at para 4 of the complaint.

The complainant for the first time made grievance by making a complaint to the opposite party as per Ex. R-1 i.e., R-23 on 25-8-1988 which reads as under: "Since the date of the installation of my telephone No. 561328, my telephone bills has not exceeded Rs. 3,652/- that too only once and rest of the bills being within Rs. 1,200/- only. I regret to state that the latest bill is for Rs. 6243/- which is beyond my expectation. To avoid complications and disconnection for non-payment I have made the payment under protest. The above telephone normally remains under lock and key only during my presence it gets dis locked for my personal use. However, during the period of dispute I was out of India for Haj-pilgrimage, I am herewith enclosing the xerox copies of my passport supporting my statement as above. In this pretext, I request you therefore to kindly probe into fact and to settle the bill at the earliest. I request you to adjust the excess amount I have paid in the subsequent bills." Reading of this complaint would go to show that the complaint was only in respect of telephone No. 561328 i.e., the telephone installed at his residence in respect of the latest bill dated 11-8-1988 only. There was no complaint with regard to any other telephone for excess billing.

EX. C-91 i.e., EX. R-4 is the other complaint dated 19-10-1988 regarding the same telephone i.e., 561328 for the bill dated 11-10-1988 only alleging excess billing on it. Ex. C-92 is yet another complaint dated 26-10-1988 i.e., a complainant in continuation of the complaint dated 19-10-1988 made in respect of telephone No. 561328 for the bills dated 11-8-1988 and 11-10-1988.

EX. C-94 a letter dated 4-11-1988 regarding the same telephone i.e., 561328 referring to his earlier complaints EXs. C-91 and C-92. This would go to show that there was no complaint or grievance made by the complainant with regard to any other telephone for excess billing. The next complaint is only in the year 1990 as per Ex. C-5 i.e., Ex. R-12 dated 14-8-1990 this complaint as well is only in respect of telephone No. 561328 regarding bill dated 11-8-1990 only alleging cross connection and meter reading fault. Ex.C-96 is the last complaint made to the opposite party before this complaint come to be filed on 4-1-1991.

EX. C-96 is dated 7-11-1990. In this complaint EX. C-96, a general grievance made by the complainant regarding the excess billing was only in respect of two telephones at his residence.

THEREFORE, it is clear that the complainant as referred above made grievance regarding excess billing only in respect of one telephone at his residence i.e., 561328 regarding only two bills received by him in the month of Aug. and Oct. 1988. Thereafter, there was no grievance by the complainant even with regard to this telephone till the month of August 1990. As per Ex. C-5 even on 14-8-1990 the grievance of the complainant was regarding telephone No. 561328 only and that too for the bill dated 11-8-1990 only.

As per Ex. C-96 on 7-11-1990 a general complaint was made regarding both the telephones installed at his residence alleging excess billing.

IT is only in the complaint made before this Commission on 4-1-1991, a general complaint, regarding 5 telephones i.e., 2 at his shop premises, 2 at his residence and 1 in his transport garage came to be made, the averments in respect of this at para 4 of the complainant read thus: "I am herewith submitting a statement showing the extent of excess amount paid by me on each of the five telephones cited above, Bimonthly for each of the average payment made during the preceding year of 1987. The statement is self-explanatory and, in order to avoid burdening the records, I am producing the statement at this stage, with copies of my representations. I am prepared to furnish any other relevant data on these telephones whenever required, if necessary. At a glance, the total excess payment made by me on each of the five telephones for the period from 1988 to 1990 (B/1): is shown below: Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether there was any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party, if so, whether the complainant did suffer any loss or injury due to the negligence of the opposite party and if so, what is the compensation to which the complainant is entitled to?

AS referred above, Ex. R-1 is the earliest complaint dated 25-8-1988 made regarding telephone No. 561328 for the bill dated 11-8-1988. Ex. C-91 is another complaint dated 19-10-1988 regarding the same telephone but for the bill dated 11-10-1988. Ex. C-92 dated 26-10-1988 and Ex. C- 94 dated 4-11-1988 are reminders sent by the complainant to consider his grievance made in complaint Ex. R-l and Ex. C-91. R.W-1 has stated that the complaints made by the complainant were enquired into and investigated and it was found that there was no fault in the meter or misuse by the employees as averred by the complainant. R.W-1 in respect of complaint Ex. R-1 i.e., Ex. R-23, has stated thus: "Ex. R-23 is another complaint received from the complainant. On receipt of this complaint the regular enquiry was held. The reports under Form A, B & C as per Exs. R-24, R-25 and R-26 were received. Ex. R-27 is the report of fortnightly meter reading for the period from 25-9-87 to 25-9-88. Ex. R-26 is the report of the daily meter reading. Exs. R-28 and R- 30 are the meter test readings. Ex. R-31 is the extract of the fault card."

IN respect of complaint Ex. C-91 i.e., Ex. R- 4, R.W-1 has stated that it was also enquired into and as per Ex. R-10 no fault was found. The relevant part of the evidence of R.W-1 in this regard reads thus: "On receipt of this complaint, Ex. R-4, we called for the reports in form Nos. A, B and C and after receipt of those reports we have replied the complainant. Exs. R-5, R-6 and R- 7 are the reports under Form Nos. A, B and C. Ex. R-6a is the part of Ex. R-6. 11/2 Ex. R-8 is the fortnightly meter reading in respect of telephone No. 561328 from 25-7-1987 to 25- 10-1988. Ex. R-9 is the daily meter reading of the said telephone from 10-8-1988 to 25-8-1988. The reading as per Ex. R-8 has been taken to prepare the bill. The RF in Ex. R-a means reference figure. Figure 204 referred in Ex. R-8 is only a reference figure for us. For giving a reference figure there are no rules and regulations. To arrive at such figure, we take into consideration the previous 6 months reading and in that the highest fortnights reading and then we double the figure and then determine the RF. We also maintained a fault card. Ex. R-10 is the extract of the fault card. After receipt of the reports as narrated above in Form Nos. A, B and C and the fault card, I have come to the conclusion that there was no fault and the same was intimated to the complainant."

EX. C-5 i.e., EX.R-12 is the complaint dated 14-8-1990 which was also enquired into as per the evidence of R.W-1 and no fault was found as per EX. R-15. The relevant part of the evidence of R.W-1 reads thus: "EX. R12 is the complaint received from the lainant which is dt 14.8.1990. On receipt of the complaint the EX. R-12, the same enquiry as referred above was made in respect of the said complaint. The reports under Form A, B as per EX. R-13, R-14 were received. Fault Card EX. R-15 was also received. EX. R-14a is the part of form B. EX. R-16 is the fortnightly meter reading for the period from 25.5.1989 to 25.9.1990."

Ex. R-17 dt 20.12.1990 is the complaint in continuation of the complaint Ex. C-96, the said complaint also was enquired into and no fault was noticed as per Ex. R-21. The relevant part of the evidence of RW1 reads thus:- "Ex. R-17 is the another complaint received from the Complainant on which necessary enquiries were held, reports under Form A, B & C under Exs. R-18, R-19 and R-20 were received. Ex.R-19a is the part of Ex.R-19 and Ex. R-21 is the fault card. Ex. R-22 is the fortnightly meter reading for the period from 10.12.1989 to 25.1.1991."

Ex. R-32 is the complaint dt 28.12.1990 in respect of telephone number 565983 for the billing period 25.9.1990 to 25.11.1990, the said complaint also was enquired into and no fault was found. RW 1 has in this regard stated thus: - "Ex. R-32 is the complaint dt 28.12.1990 received from the complainant on which reports under Forms A, B & C as per Exs. R-33, R-34 and R-35 were received. Ex. R-34a is the part of Form B. Ex. R-36 is the extract of the fault card. Ex. R-37 is the fortnightly meter reading for the period from 10-12-1989 to 25.1.1991."

THE complainant has, in his evidence, stated the reasons for filing this complaint, thus:- "Ex. C-97 is the reply received by me to my complaint dt 7.11.1990. Copies of the readings referred to in Ex. C-97 were not given to me. Hence, I have filed this complaint." Ex. C-97 is the reply sent by the opp. party on enquiry into the complaint Ex.R-38 dt 7.11.1990 stating that no fault was found and so no rebate could be given. RW1 has in this regard stated thus:- "The complainant had also made complaint to the General Manager which also referred to me we had already taken action on the earlier complainants, so no action was taken on receipt of the complaint forwarded to us by the General Manager. Ex. R-38 is the complaint forwarded by the General Manager. Ex. R-38a is the Annexure of Ex. R-38."

IT is clear from the material placed on record as referred above that the complaints that were made with regard to excess billing regarding phone No. 561328 came to be enquired into and investigated by the opp. party and no fault was found whatsoever either in the meter on the line or any misuse was found; that is the case in respect of the complaints made in the months of August and November 1990, as well. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that during the period in question, the family members of the complainant including the complainant had gone to Holy Mecca, so there was no question of any use of the telephones at his residence and so it is evident that the telephone bills were highly inflated and excessive. The complainant has placed on record Ex. C-6, a passport that shows that the complainant had gone to Mecca in the first part of 1990 and got back within a month or two thereafter to India. No material is placed on record to show that his family members had also gone to Holy Mecca during that period. So it is very difficult to accept the say of the complainant that there was no possibility of the use of the phones at his residence during that period.

THE complainant has not placed any material on record to show that he had any grievance at any time with regard to the telephones bearing Nos. 561193, 578793 and 578136. Even with regard to his two telephones at his residence, grievance made in the year 1988 was only in respect of one telephone at his residence i.e., 561328 only and that too only for two bills received by him in the month of Aug. 1988 and Oct. 1988. As referred above, even those complaints came to be enquired into and investigated by the opp. party and no fault whatsoever was found.

EVEN in the year 1990 the complaint made by the complainant was as per Ex. C-5 in respect of telephone No. 561328 for the bill dt 11.8.1990 only and that was also enquired into by the opp. party and no fault was found. It was only in Ex. C-96 and Ex. R-38 dt. 7.11.1990, a general complaint was made regarding excess billing for both the residential phones, even those complaints came to be enquired into and investigated and it was found that there was no fault.

It is only in the present complaint which came to be filed on 4.1.1991, a general allegation was made alleging excess billing regarding all the five telephones for the entire period from 1988 to 1990. This is a very general and ambiguous allegation, no material has been placed on record by the complainant to prove this assertion and so we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint. We do not find any material to hold that there was any deficiency in service rendered by the opp. party. In that view, we hold the point raised for consideration in the negative. In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.