B.L. CHAKKU vs DISTRICT TELECOM ENG.

THE parties, facts and the evidence in both the above mentioned cases are same. Hence both the cases are being disposed of by one single judgment. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the file of the other case.

THE case No. 1 pertains to the inflated bill for telephone No. 30363 amounting to Rs. 1,903/- and Rs. 4,064/- pertaining to the period from 16.6.89 to 15.8.89 and 16.8.89 to 15.10.89 respectively and case No. 2 pertains to the inflated bill of the same telephone No. amounting to Rs. 3,444/- for the period 16-10-89 to 15-12-89. The allegations of the complainant in both the cases are the telephone bills received are much inflated as compared to previous ones. He alleges that whenever he lifted the receiver for making call, cross talks were going on. Not only this some times the telephone would stop its dial tone for hours, then again the dial tone would be restored signifying that the telephone was being used by some one else. He many a times brought the matter into the notice of the District Eng. telephone who instead of sympathising for inflicting severest blow to the consumer, appeared insensitive to the woes of the subscriber and appeared stiff necked, arrogant and lacked courtesy in dealing with the grievances of the subscribers. He added that these bills are more than five times of the average of the previous periods. He admits that the Deptt. has given him a rebate of Rs. 1,400/- in the bill of Rs. 4,064/- but he was not satisfied with that and approached the Divisional Forum for redress. He prays that the amount of all the three bills be reduced and also demanded Rs. 35,000/- in both the cases as compensation for loss, harassment and mental torture he suffered due to the negligence of the non- applicants.

Notices along with the copies of the complaints in both the cases separately were sent to the non applicant directing them to appear and file their version of the case failing which the Forum shall proceed ex parte to settle the dispute of the consumer under the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act. Despite service none of the non-applicants took the trouble of appearing before the Forum on the dates fixed and filing their versions of the case. Hence ex parte proceedings were ordered against them in both the cases.

IN support of both the cases, Shree J. N. Chakku the father and the attorney of the complainant, has recorded his statement as the witness of the complainant in both the cases separately and also closed the ex parte evidence of the complainant. While supporting the complaints, the witness has given the details of the previous telephone bills as under :- (a) From 15.5.88 to 16.7.88 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 476/ (b) From 15.7.88 to 16.9.88 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 644/ (c) From 15.9.88 to 16.11.88 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 708/ (d) From 15.11.88 to 2.1.89 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 1440/ (e) From 3.1.89 to 15.2.89 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 401/ (f) From 16.2.89 to 15.4.89 the bill for 1. calls was Rs. 1363/

and stated that average of the bills used to come to Rs. 700/- and Rs. 800/- per two months bill. The fact that the Deptt. had given a rebate of Rs. 1,400/- with respect to the bill for the period from 16.8.89 to 15.10.89, it was a clear acknowledgement of the fact the billing was excessive. From the non-applicant side there is none to clear the matter that how and on what basis the Deptt. had given such rebate and what yard stick was used for assessing the rebate amount or putting forward before the Forum any scientific explanation for erratic behaviour of the meter. It could be possible that some human agency involved himself in doing such mischief. It is an open secret that unscrupulous members of public join hand with petty and corrupt workmen and officials to get their phones stealthily connected with the lines of other unsuspected STD phone users and make un-authorised calls out side the stations. This is the reason why some times people get inflated bills for no valid reasons. IN all these three cases Divisional Forum is of the opinion that the inflated bills are due to the mechanic defect in the meter or due to some mischief committed by the Deptt. people. The three disputed telephone bills for local calls are as under : Period Bill including rent & Trunk Calls Local calls bill (a) 16.6.89 to 15.8.89 Rs. 1903/- Rs. 1763/- (b) 16.8.89 to 15.10.89 Rs. 4064/- Rs. 3830/- (c) 16.10.89 to 15.12.89 Rs. 3444/- Rs. 3260/-

After calculation the amount of the previous one year bill, average of two months comes to Rs. 840/ for local calls. If the excessive billing is about 25 per cent above the normal average user that should be considered as normal. A rise or fall in the number of calls by about 25 per cent in day to day use of telephone can normally occur. Therefore that much variation may not be taken notice of. But any rise beyond that should be taken notice of and should be treated on merit of the facts of each case. Keeping in view the above average amount of the local calls and 25 per cent above the normal average, the Forum allows the rebate of Rs. 713/- in a bill of Rs. 1,763/- for local calls. The Deptt. had already given Rs. 1,400/- as rebate in a bill of Rs. 3,830/- for local calls but the chargeable amount is still high. Here the Forum allows a further rebate of Rs. 1,380/-. About the third bill amounting to Rs. 3,260/- for local calls, the witness has in his statement stated that the complainant will be satisfied if it is reduced to Rs. 1,500/- for local calls and accordingly the Forum reduces it to Rs. 1,500/- for local calls. Now the chargeable amount of all the three telephone bills will be Rs. 1,050/-, Rs. 1,050/- and Rs. 1,500/- respectively excluding the rent and amount of trunk calls. The non-applicant No. 1 shall either refund the excess amount deposited to the complainant or will adjust in the future bills,

NOW the Forum comes to the question of compensation demanded by the complainant from the non-applicants. The Forum would like to mention here that in a case instituted on 30.12.89, on the application of the complainant on 30.12.89 the Forum, in addition to the notice, issued the Stay Order in the following words : "Mean while the non-applicants will neither ask the complainant for payment of the disputed telephone bills till further orders nor they will order for disconnection for non-payment of the bill. However this order will be subject to the objections from the non-applicants. "

This order was duly served upon the non-applicant No. 1. But despite that stay, the non-applicant No. 1 deliberately disconnected the telephone No. 30363 and forced the . complainant to make payment of the disputed bills. The complainant then made payment of the disputed bills and got the connection restored after depositing of fine of Rs. 100/-. The complainant brought the whole matter into the notice of the Forum through an application dated 26.4.90. On that application, the Forum under Sec. 21 of J & K Consumer Protection Act of 1987 issued a show cause notice to Mr. R. C. Nanda Distt. Engineer Telecom, Jammu that for the non-compliance of the order of the Forum dated 30.12.89 to show that why he should not be punished with one months imprisonment. He with his Counsel personally appeared and filed his objections. There is nothing in the objections excepting that the Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the cases against the Telephone Deptt. The Forum is constrained to remark that our every day experience tells us that the Telephone Deptt. holds every telephone consumer to random by having the unrestrained powers to disconnect the telephone at their end sometimes for no plausible reason whatever. Even petty telephone operators and those attending to complaints sometimes behave in a most unreasonable and vindictive manner. They are salesmen and saleswomen so to say of a commercial concern which charges fees and renders services to the consumers. It is, therefore, their bounden duty to be courteous, for it is the consumer who should be treated as master, as is done in most of the foreign countries where one can get a new telephone installed at an hours notice. But here in our great country it is the consumer who is at the utter mercy of these operators and officials of the Telephone Department. They have to tolerate the insult because they are afraid that they may not be deprived of whatever little telephone facility they are able to get. The telephone authorities must take notice of this dangerous trend in a great democratic set up. The consumers will never tolerate such an attitude from them any more.

ANY how the Forum is not inclined to proceed further against the non-applicant No. 1 any more for the contempt. The Forum feel that it might have happened under the wrong impression that the Forum had no jurisdiction over the Telephone Department. Though the jurisdiction plea had been conceded by the Counsel for the Telephone Department in other cases before the Forum. The Forum hope that in future the officer shall behave properly and desist in defying the orders of the Forum definitely suffered loss, harassment and mental torture as a consequence of the high handedness and despotic behaviour of the department and therefore the complainant is entitled to some amount of compensation from the Telephone Deptt. There is no exact measurement for assessment of the quantum of compensation. This is the first case of its kind before the Forum under J & K Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation from the non- applicants for the loss, harassment and mental torture suffered by him due to the negligence and high handedness from the opposite party.

UNDER Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of J & K Consumer Protection Act of 1987, every order made by the Divisional Forum under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall have to be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be order of the Divisional Forum. Both the members of this Forum were appointed by the Govt. on whole time basis. But none of them has neither submitted any joining report with the Forum nor they have attended the Forum work even for a single day. It amounts to clear vacancy of the members of the Forum and in case of vacancy, the President is competent enough to sign and deliver judgment under the provisions of J&K Consumer Protection Act of 1987 single handed. Hence this judgment. Ordered accordingly.