Murari Lal vs The S.D.O. (Telephones) and Another

G.C. Mittal, J.—Murari Lal a telephone subscriber was carrying on Sarafa business. He had STD dialing facility. He filed a suit to challenge the correctness of the following telephone bills:

Exhibit P8 for the period 11.1.1981 to 10.04.1981 = Rs. 4536/-

Exhibit P9 for the period 11.4.1981 to 10.07.1981 = Rs. 7054/-

Exhibit P10 for the period 11.7.1981 to 10.10.1981 = Rs. 5403/-

Relief of prohibitory injuhction was claimed from recovering the amount under the aforesaid bills on the plea that the meter was giving wrong reading and the business of the plaintiff was such that he could not have used the telephone by dialing so many calls, so as to incur such huge bills. He had also sent written complaints after receipt of the bills.

In the written statement, the plea raised was that the plaintiff was engaged in Satta business and with the help of STD facility used to make inter-state calls. As regards complaints for meter defects, if any, the reply was that every time the meter was checked and Was found to be in order. The plea was that the excessive billing was due to the excessive use of the STD facility.

Both the Courts below dismissed the suit after recording the finding that the meter was correct and excessive calls were made. This is second appeal by the plaintiff.

It is beyond the pale of controversy that at the instance of the plaintiff, STD facility was taken away with effect from 26.5.1981. We find this not only from Exhibit Dl but also from the statement of SDO Telephones recorded as D3. Point arises for consideration is whether after 26th May, 1981 there could be such a heavy billing for local dialing of Bhiwani town as from that date STD facility was not available. When this matter was put to the SDO, even he agreed that for local Bhiwani calls such a heavy billing was not possible and such heavy billing was possible only with the aid of STD calls. In this context, we have to examine whether the heavy billing with effect from 26th May, 1981 is justified. In view of the statement of the STD as DW3 to the effect that the main plea of the department for heavy billing till STD facility was available, was for direct dialing to distant places like Bombay, Calcutta etc. for doing the Satta business. It is not disputed that STD billing is made like a local billing whereas trunk calls bill are separately sent. If after 26th May, 1981, the plaintiff had used trunk call facility for taking to Bombay, Calcutta, etc. or any outside-place, the trunk call bills would have come but that is not the case here. Heavy billing is of all local calls. In this view of the matter, the taking away of the STD facility from 26th May, 1981 assumes importance.

Considering the case in the background that the STD facility was taken away on 26th May, 1981, the heavy billing thereafter is clearly erroneous. 26th May, 1981 falls in between the period for which bill Exhibit P9 was sent. Therefore, billing for half of the period on the basis of STD calls is clearly wrong. Whole of the bill Exhibit P10 relates to the period after cancellation of STD facility. This bill is thus totally wrong. Even if it is assumed that there was no defect in the meter, still this conclusion has to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff after the STD was taken away.

For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the plaintiff would be charged for the period 11.7.1981 to 10.10.1981, covered by bill Exhibit P10 at the minimum rate, which a subscriber without extra calls was liable to pay. A prohibitory injunction is issued against the respondent to claim anything beyond that against bill Exhibit P10. For this purpose, it will be open to the department to send the revised bill for the minimum rate payable by a subscriber.

Adverting to Exhibit P9, since 26th May, 1981 falls in between the period, it would be reasonable to order that on payment of half of the amount under this bill, the liability would stand fully discharged. The respondents would be restrained from recovering the balance half by a decree of prohibition. Of course, the bill Exhibit P8 would stand as it is and the plaintiff will have to pay whole of the amount thereunder.

The counsel for the plaintiff has stated at the bar that his client has paid about Rs. 1000/- towards the bills Exhibit P8 to P10, by way of interim arrangement. If that is so, that amount will be adjusted while recalculating the amount pursuant to this judgment and decree.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.