JAYALAKSHMI RAMASAMY vs DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

BOTH appeals are by the same complainant. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

THE case of the complainant is as follows: She is a subscriber for a telephone having ISD and STD facilities. She got bills for Rs. 15,316/- on 11.8.1995, Rs. 35,484/- on 11.10.1995 and Rs. 48,448/- on 11.12.1995 (Appeal No. 67/97 refers to these bills). Though the bills were excessive and she was convinced that she did not make those calls, she paid the amounts. THEn she got a dynamic lock system. Even thereafter she got a bill for Rs. 88,595/- on 11.2.1996). (Appeal No. 66/97 refers to this bill). Such a huge number of calls were not made by her. THErefore, she approached the District Forum with two complaints seeking the following reliefs: Complaint No. 29/96 (Appeal No. 67/97) (1) To order the first opposite party to pay the amounts in excess and cancel the bills including recently issued which is dated 11.2.1996 and on 11.10.1995, 11.12.1995 and order to refund the balance of Rs. 15,316/-. (2) To direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-; and (3) To direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the proceedings. Complaint No. 70/96 (Appeal No. 66/97) (1) To order the opposite parties to pay the amounts in excess and cancel the bill including recently issued which is dated 11.4.1996, after appointing an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and to pass suitable order; (2) To direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-; and (3) To direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties stated that all the bills relate to the calls made by the subscriber and they have supplied the details of calls made by her and prayed for the dismissal of the complaints.

The District Forum after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the print-outs produced by the Department for all the bills clearly proved that all the calls emanated from the complainant''s phone and that she has been repeatedly calling a particular number in France. The District Forum also observed that the complainant was having a dynamic lock system and there was no possibility of misuse. Under the circumstances the District Forum declined to afford any relief to the complainant on account of excess calls and dismissed the complaints by order dated 17.12.1996.

IN appeals it is contended that the District Forum had placed too much reliance on the dynamic lock system and the appellant insisted on the appointment of an Arbitrator which the complainant asked for. In respect of the claim for appointment of an Arbitrator, it is stated by the opposite party that the appellant has applied for the appointment of an Arbitrator by letter dated 24.2.1996. It is further stated that reply was given on 11.4.1997 stating that the matter was not one fit for being referred to arbitration. It is added that the reply given by the Divisional Engineer (Admn. & Plg.) is appealable before the General Manager, Telecommunications Department, Tanjore.

WE shall go back to the prayers as made by the complainant. The prayers are clumsily worded. If the complainant''s case is that the levy of charges in excess of dues constitutes a deficiency in service, she should seek return of the excess charges paid under Section 14(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If she is aggrieved by the non-appointment of an Arbitrator, two reliefs were open to her. Either to ask for compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act upon alleging negligence and showing the loss consisting of non appointment of an Arbitrator sustained by such negligence. Or to ask to remove the deficiency consisting of not appointing an Arbitrator under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In this case, the complainant has clubbed her prayers and expressed them in such a way as it is difficult to ascertain what is exactly her prayer. The District Forum considered the prayer as one made under Section 14(1)(e) viz., refund of excess charges paid which prayer it dismissed in giving valid reasons. WE do not see any reason to disagree with the finding of the District Forum and for that reason the appeals are to be dismissed. But the prayer of the complainant may be different. It is therefore just and proper to leave her the possibility of agitating her claim in framing her case properly and her prayer accurately. Before coming again before the District Forum the complainant may also prefer an appeal before the General Manager Tanjore against the refusal of appointment of an Arbitrator by the Divisional Engineer. With the above observations, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.