HARIBHAI L.PATEL vs Ahmedabad Telecom District

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7.6.1997, passed by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 955/1994 whereby the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed this appeal.

THE case of the complainant in brief was that he was having Telephone No. 642707 with S.T.D. facility. THE opponent sent bill for a period of 7.5 months at a time covering period from 31.3.1993 to 16.10.1993. It was alleged that the said bill was excessive and telephone remained non-functioning for one month during that period. THErefore, the rebate should be granted and excessive amount charged should be returned. The opposite party resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that there was S.T.D. facility and bill was given as per the meter reading. The meter-circuit was found proper. It was also submitted that the opponent could not issue the bill because of non-acceptance of data in computer. It was also submitted that the opportunity was given to the complainant and after considering the facts of the case the Competent Authority passed the appropriate order of rebate for non-functioning of the said telephone. The Exchange was automatic and, therefore, the complaint ought to be dismissed.

After hearing the parties and considering the material which has been placed on record the learned Forum came to the conclusion that there was delay in issuing the bill because of non-acceptance of data in computer and complainant had not suffered any loss. Further there was nothing on record that the bill was excessive. The learned Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint and the complainant is before this Commission as aforesaid.

WE have heard the complainant and the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. WE have also considered averments and grounds contained in the memo of appeal. WE have also gone through all the records and proceedings of the District Forum. Firstly, it was submitted by the complainant that he had made some telephone calls (metered) during five months but there was no neither explanation nor a bill. It was also submitted that ultimately the bill was issued on 16.10.1993 and without bi-monthly figures. He lodged a complaint for excessive bill on 5.11.1993 but that was even not acknowledged. He was called for personal interview on 26.4.1994 after about five months and that too after giving notice. He received the intimation letter after the date was over. However, since there was a telephone message he went there in time. The office people were ignorant about that appointment and on complainant''s insistence some junior person attended him and decided the complaint. It was contended that because of non-acceptance of the data the bill could not be issued in time. Be that it may we fail to understand why it was not communicated to the complainant why the bill was not prepared manually and why the bill was not sent telephonically. In our considered opinion the opponent is bound to explain every day of such a long delay of 7.5 months. The opponent has not filed any affidavit of the officer in charge in this regard. The learned Forum has erred in accepting mere statement of the opponent. In our considered opinion it was nothing but the deficiency on the part of the opponent.

SECONDLY, it was contended by the complainant that inspite of his demand the opponent did not supply the details of the calls but it was only filed with the reply before the Forum on 13.2.1995. Thus he was never given opportunity to support his complaint and opponent arbitrarily took the decision that his bill was not excessive. We have gone through the record and there were I.S.D. calls for Hongkong and there were spurts during 30.4.1993 to 16.5.1993. It was the case of the complainant that no such calls were made by him. In our considered opinion the opponents were bound to check the telephone lines at that point of time as per the guidelines which was admittedly not done. Further the complainant was informed about it after about 2 years. It may be noted here that the report submitted to this Commission by the opponents dated 23.10.2002 also shows the Telephone No. 462607 whereas infact the number is 462707. Bearing in mind the recent decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case of Telecom District Manager v. Kavaljit Kaur, reported in 2002 CTJ at page 197. (In that case the guidelines were discussed in detail and it was held that they are to be followed by the opponent Telecom Department), we hold that there was deficiency on the part of the opponents in not following the guidelines. Regarding the amount of the compensation the complainant has submitted that the basic issue is not the amount of money involved but (sic.) that monopoly public institution is charging for the phone calls not made. In this view of the matter token compensation of Rs. 2,000/- will be just and proper. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Forum is set aside. The opponents are directed to pay the complainant Rs. 2,000/- within six weeks from today. No further order as to cost. Appeal allowed.