GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM vs PRITPAL KAUR WASU

MRS. Pritpal Kaur Wasu instituted a complaint that her telephone bills, of telephone No. 540129, for the period 16.8.1994 to 15.10.1994,16.10.1994 to 15.12.1994,16.12,1994 to 15.2.1995 and 16.2.1995 to 15.4.1995 for the sums of Rs. 20,331/-, 45,664/-, 35,818/- and 28,709/- respectively were excessive. On or about 15.8.1994, the locking system of her telephone developed a snag inasmuch as after making a call, it did not look. She made a number of complaints to the Telephone Department, but there was no response. The appellant department did not furnish copies/detail of the printouts despite specific demand. After considering the details and earlier averages, the District Forum ultimately ordered on 14.5.1997 reduction and directed that though the earlier averages were between Rs. 5.357/- to 7,270/-, yet the four bills shall be payable on the maximum figure of Rs. 7,270/- per bill and the extra payment, if made, shall be adjusted/refunded by the department. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by the department.

IN this case, the complainant had been requesting the department to check working of the telephone and to repair the locking system. After oral complaints, she also approached the department by means of written letters Annexures P3, P4, P5, P6, etc. yet there was no response. If and when the telephone bills are challenged the department is expected to furnish the details. The complainant, in this case, also moved an application, wherein she demanded: "(i) Printout/s of STD calls for the period August, 1994 to 29th May, 1995, relating to telephone No. 540129; (ii) Fortnightly meter reading in respect of the said telephone for the same period".

The department did not furnish this information. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not explain why this information on facts has been withheld. Thus, it is a case where the complainant started making complaints at the earliest as seen above and the appellant concealed this information though it was required to furnish. The withholding of this information is such a lapse that goes against the appellant. The assessment of the District Forum on facts is reproduced as under: "....Complainant before coming to this Forum made written request to opposite party to supply her fortnightly readings of her telephone. Telephone Authorities just ignored the request of the complainant. During the processing of the complaint also opposite party through GP was called upon to produce copies of the printout and fortnightly readings for the periods covered by the impugned bills. Opposite party did not supply the copies. The production of these documents would have thrown valuable light on the facts in controversy. Opposite party has not alleged much less proved that during the period of the impugned bills there was some special occasion for excessive and unrestricted use of the telephone. When we compare the amounts of the bills under challenge with the previous calling pattern of the complainant, we find that each of the impugned bill is manifold the amount of highest bill complainant received prior to the disputed bill".

On behalf of the appellant, our attention has been invited to Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa v. Mrs. Sheela HN Gaunekar, I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC), where excess payment was brought down on the basis of averages and the decision of the Forum was set aside. The facts of the case now in hand are distinguishable inasmuch as from the very beginning, the subscriber brought it to the notice of the department that the locking system developed snag and it was not working.

IN a case of this nature, where details of the calls attributed have been withheld, the new plea that the dispute was not referred to arbitration also loses its importance. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.