GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, JAIPUR vs RADHEY SHYAM

IN this revision petition No. 106 of 1995 the General Manager, Telecom, Jaipur, petitioner herein, has pleaded that the decision of the State Commission, Rajasthan, in Appeal No. 518 of 1993, Radhey Shy am v. General Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, M.I. Road, Jaipur, was ex-parte decision and that they were not given any opportunity to present their views before them. Briefly the facts are that Mr. Radhey Shyam having a telephone No. 72628 at his residence complaint that this telephone has been out of order from time to time and inspite of that, he has been receiving inflated bills which could not be supported by the Telephone Department and which were mainly due to defect in the metering equipment.

IN their order, the State Commission has mentioned that an appearance was put on behalf of the Telephone Department through Mr. Rafiq, Advocate on 5.10.93, but in the later hearings neither any representative of the Department nor any Counsel appeared, and therefore, after hearing the appellant''s Counsel at length and on perusing the record of the District Forum the case was decided ex-parte. The State Commission in their decision has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the telephone subscriber for not removing the defect in his telephone No. 72628 promptly and another sum of Rs. 7,000/- for sending to him excessive and inflated telephone bills based on the readings of a defective meter. In all, the Telephone Department has been asked to pay a total compensation of Rs. 12,000/- for not removing the fault in his telephone promptly and for sending inflated bills to him. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and after perusing the records of this case, we feel that it is necessary to give an opportunity to the Telephone Department to rebut the allegations made by the complainant both in respect of delay in removing the defects and also for sending the inflated bills. It is clear that there has been a high spurt in the calls from 23.2.91 to 28.2.91. At the same time it is also noted in the order that the Telephone was put on MLOE from 23.2.91 to 28.2.91 and it was found that during this period of 6 days, 669 STD calls and some local calls were made. The telephone in question has the STD facility. Since the Department had put this telephone on MLOE to monitor the calls, so as to investigate the spurt, it is necessary that the Department should be given an opportunity to prove that the bills sent were not excessive or inflated and further that the calls were actually made from the concerned telephone. This Commission has held that until and unless the complainant establishes any defect in the metering equipment or any other defect and does not adduce evidence to the effect that the Telephone Department has misused the telephone or manipulated the calls, it cannot be held that the Department has sent an inflated or excessive telephone bill. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has been reporting the fault in his telephone from time to time and therefore has contended that the spurt in calls was due to defective metering. At the same time, the Telephone Department also has contended that instructions were issued to arrange rectification of the fault and fortnightly meter reading was also done to see, if there was any misuse of the telephone. The Telephone Department has also stated that the fault was reported on 7.4.91 by the complainant and it was cleared on 13.4.91. It has been noted that during the fortnightly meter reading made on 20.2.91 spurt was noticed, escalating the number of calls to 7,541 while the normal fortnightly pattern of meter reading was round about 1,200 or 1,300 calls.

AS the Telecommunications Department has produced the fault cards etc. before the District Forum and in their written version also, it is necessary that the facts of this case are verified in their totality, taking into account the pleadings of both the complainant and the Department. Such a course is only fair and in the interest of justice. Hence, we remand this case back to the State Commission for giving an opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their allegations and direct them to appear before the State Commission, Rajasthan to seek directions from it in regard to the further hearing of this case. The parties are to bear their own costs.