GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD TELEPHONES vs MIR SADAT ALI

THE complainant in C.D. 447/95, District Forum, Ranga Reddy (O.P. No. 22 of 1995, District Forum, Hyderabad) is a subscriber of Telephone bearing No. 390856. According to him, his earlier bills were for smaller amounts and all of a sudden, the Department, issued a bill dated 21.9.1994 for an exhorbitant amount of Rs. 27,789 /- for the period from 5.7.1994 to 5.9.1994 inclusive of service charges, etc., on making a representation to the Department, it issued a split bill. Alleging that the inflation of the bill is due to some mischievous indulgence and other defects in the equipment, the complaint was filed, to direct the opposite party not to insist upon payment of the bill.

A counter was filed on behalf of the General Manager, Telecom District i.e. opposite party. It was stated in the counter that the equipment and out door plant were checked up and fortnightly metre readings were noted and the opposite party found that there is no defect. It, therefore, confirmed the bill. Before the District Forum, no oral evidence was adduced. The complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-14. Exs. A-1 to A-11, being the copies of the bills for the period from 21.3.1992 to 21.7.1994 and some paper cuttings of Deccan Chronicle. On behalf of the opposite party, Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. The District Forum relying upon the decision of Gauhati High Court in Santosh Singh v. Divisional Engineer (Telephones), Shilling, AIR 1990 Gau. 47, held that the Department did not follow the procedure as envisaged in the guidelines, issued by the Department in Circular dated 9.4.1986. It, further, held that taking into consideration all these circumstances, that the opposite party should collect only the previous highest bill for Rs. 4,192/- dated 21.3.1994 and adjust the excess amount paid.

Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. It is firstly submitted by Mr C.J. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4849 of 1991 granted interim stay of the Judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court. But the order is clear that the leave was granted on the scope of Rule 443. Anyhow, it is not necessary to go into the validity of Rule 443. In our view, the District Forum having held that the Department did not follow the guidelines issued by the Department, in Circular dated 9.4.1986 to have remanded the matter to the Department, after setting aside the impugned bill. On the other hand, it has taken upon itself the task of calculating the calls made and the bill to be issued afresh by the Department. In our view, it is not within the purview of the District Forum to decide the bill amount, as it can only say whether it is in excess or not. If, it considers that it is excessive, it can set aside the bill, as in the view of the District Forum the guidelines were not followed. We consider the District Forum should have sent back the case to the Department to follow the guidelines and issue a revised bill.

THE National Commission in II (1996) CPJ 99 (NC), Telecom District Manager, Mehasana and Another v. Patel Shankarlal Kevalram, also held that the Department has to follow the departmental guidelines in determining the complaint with regard to excess billing. For all the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the Department to follow the guidelines issued by the Department, and determine whether the amount of the bill is excessive or not and to issue after giving notice to the complainant a revised bill accordingly. Pending issuance of the revised bill, as the complainant has paid the provisional bill amount of 25% i.e. nearly Rs. 5.000/-, the Department should not take action against the complainant either for dis-connecting the telephone or payment of the balance amount under the impugned bill.

IN the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Appeal disposed of. _____________