STARFAX ASSOCIATES vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are, that the complainant has got telephone No. 672894 in his business premises. The disputed period is from 31st March, 1988 to 26th January, 1989. The complainant received a telephone bill of Rs. 2,15,000/- on 7th June, 1990 for local calls less-charged during the disputed period i.e. from 31st March, 1988 to 26th January, 1989. They pleaded that they had been paying all the bills regularly and no amount was due from them. They have prayed for quashing the bill.

THE complaint has been contested on behalf of the respondent. It is pleaded by them that the complainant in collusion with some officials of the department got the bill of lesser calls for the period in dispute. A complaint regarding manipulation in fortnightly meter reading (hereinafter referred to as ''FNMR'') was received in respect of telephone Nos. 672547 & 679138. It was alleged that some pilferage of calls was being done by the subscribers of those telephones. THE case was entrusted to the Vigilance Department which looked into the complaint in respect of the said two telephones. While doing so, it came to light that in addition to the pilferage made in respect of those telephones, it was being done in respect of some other telephones including the telephone No. 672894. It was found that for the period in question, the meter reading in Meter Test Register (MTR) was recorded higher but the complainant was billed for lesser calls. In that way the complainant was charged two lacs calls less than the actual calls. It is also pleaded that the complainant was carrying on fax business and they were using that telephone for that purpose. The bills for other periods except the period in dispute, were very high. At one time, there was a bill for more than Rs. 90,000/- for two months which was paid by the complainant without any demur/protest.

The first question that arises for determination is whether the bills, which were issued to the complainant for the disputed period, were for lesser amount. In order to determine this question, it is proper to peruse Chart-1 prepared by the department which is attached with the Judgment as Annexure ''A''. The annexure consists of 6 columns. Column No. 3 relates to readings in the register (hereinafter referred to as ''bill register'') according to which the bills are prepared, column No. 5 to the readings in the meter test register. The readings in the bill register are recorded fortnightly, but the readings in the meter test register, may be recorded on any date. The reading at Serial No. 1 in the bill register is 36793 and that in the meter test register is 86274. These are dated 11.8. 87 and 4.8.87 respectively. The reading in bill register is higher than that in meter test register by 419 calls. Normally, the reading recorded on a later date should be higher than the recorded on the earlier date. Thus, according to the said norm the reading at serial no. 1 is correct, and it is admitted by the respondent also. The next three readings recorded in the meter test register were recorded on 3rd October, 87, 2nd December, 87 and 10th February, 88. The nearest subsequent dates of readings to the said dates in the bill register are 11th October, 87, 11th December, 87 and 11th February, 1988. The readings on the aforesaid three dates in the bill register are more than the readings in the meter test register. Thus those entries are also correct. These have also been accepted as correct by the department.

THE disputed entries are of the months of April to December. 1988 and January, 1989. Now we will refer to the entries in the two registers pertaining to the disputed period. THE readings in the meter test register on 2nd April, 1988 was 47,506 whereas the entry in the bill register on 31st March, 1988 and 26th April, 1988, which were the nearest dates to 2nd April, 1988, were 43,169 and 43,742 respectively. THE entry on 31st March, 1988 may be correct. However, the entry dated 26th April, 1988 is not correct as the reading on 26th April, 1988 could not be less than that on 2nd April, 1988. On 7th June, 1988, the reading in meter test register is 50990, whereas in the reading in bill register on 11th June, 1988 was 44165. This entry too far reasons already recorded is incorrect. The reading recorded in meter test register on 1st August, 1988 was 89685 whereas the entry in bill register on 11th August, 1988 was 45073. The entry in the meter test register on 28th September, 1988 was 37526, but the entry on 27th September, 1988 in bill register was 46207.

HERE again apparently, the entry in the bill register is not correct. The last entry in meter lest register to which a reference has to be made is dated 22nd November, 1988. The reading is 93565. The nearest dates of readings in bill register to the said entries, are 26th November, 1988 and 12th November, 1988. On those dates the readings in the bills register are 48107 and 47319. Again, the readings in the meter test register are higher than those in the bill register, on the prior as well as subsequent dales to 22.11.88. The entries are apparently wrong. The reading dated 31st January, 89 in the meter test register is 58727. The entries in the bill register dated 26th January, 1989 and 11th February, 89 are 56001 and 67191. This entry is admitted correct by the department From the aforesaid reading it is clear that readings in the bill register between 2nd April, 1988 and December, 1988 had been manipulated. The manipulations could be managed in collusion with the officials of the department. At this stage, it is relevant to mention about the bills received by the complainant regarding the aforesaid telephone No. 672894 w.e.f. 1st March, 1988 till 1st September, 1990. These have been given in Annexure ''B'' attached with the order. The method of preparing the bills is that one year is divided into 6 periods known as billing periods. The billing periods are 16th February to 31st March, 1st April to 15th June, 16th June to 15th August, 16th August to 15th October, 16th October to 15th December and 16th December to 15th February. These billing relates to billing cycles dated 1st May, 1st September, 1st November, 1st January & 1st March, respectively.

THE contention of the Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant has been regularly paying the bills and that on 9.6.90, after a lapse of about three years, a bill of Rs. 2.5 lakhs had been sent to them. THE bill had been prepared against the rules and instructions issued by the department from time to time. THE readings on the basis of which the earlier bills had been prepared, were entered fortnightly and checked and counterchecked by the officers at various levels, whereas the meter test register on which reliance is being placed by the department for raising the demand of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was not an authentic document. Rather it was forged document. THE entries in that register had been made by only one official of the department, for a continuous period of 3 years. Such a register should not be accepted and relied upon for the purpose of raising fresh demand. He then referred to some rules of the department officer for the purpose of preparing the bills were conclusive to show what amount was due from a consumer. He also referred to some of the orders issued by the Govt. at different times for the checking of the meters to avoid underbilling and submitted that the officials were required to scrupulously follow them.

THE learned Counsel in the alternative submitted that the respondents were negligent in performing their duties. THEy were not entitled to raise a belated claim of such a huge amount on the complainant. THE bill in dispute was based on suspicious and surmises and that should not take the place of the bills prepared on the basis of the readings in the register regularly maintained by the respondents. It was also urged by the Counsel that during the period under dispute, the complainant did very little business and that is why the bills were for lesser amount We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept the same. The central theme of the argument is that the meter test register is a forged document. We do not think that in order to make a claim against the complainant, the department would forge such a big register. The meter test register does not contain the entries with regard to the complainant''s telephone only but it contains entries with regard to all the telephones in the Exchange. It is unbelievable that the department will make hundreds of entries at a later date in order to send the bill in dispute to the complainant. The complainant has installed Fax in his premises and is carrying on that business. They must have maintained the accounts regarding the income and expenditure of the business. But for the reasons best known to them, the accounts books have not been produced by them.

It is not out of place to mention that except during the period in dispute, the bills of the complainant between 1.3.88 to 1.9.90 were varying from Rs. l6,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- + odd. but they never raised any objection against any one of them. During billing cycle dated 1.1.90 and 1.3.90, the bill was as high as of Rs. 83,000/- & odd and Rs. 90,000/- & odd. It is common knowledge that the Fax Machine consumes a large number of calls. If it had been the case of an ordinary consumer the matter might have been different. It is true that the bill register should be checked by the officials of the department at different levels, but it is stated by the department that most of the instructions have become obsolete after the exchanges have been computerised. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the version of the respondent that officials of the department for ulterior motives might have manipulated the entries in collusion and to the advantage of the complainant cannot also be ruled out.

THE disputed bills are for the period from 1.4.88 to 15.12.88 i.e. for about 9 months. THE amount of bill raised on the complainant is of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Taking into consideration the liberal STD facility and the use of the telephone connection for Fax Bill of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month is not of much amount. THE complainant has also another telephone connection at their premises as already mentioned. THEre is not so much variation in the bills of that telephone as we find in those of the telephone in dispute. THEse bills are comparatively of low amounts. That goes a long way to show that the other connection was not used for the purpose of Fax. In our view, if the respondent discovered that the complainant had been under billed it had the right to send them the additional bill. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to quash the bill in dispute and consequently dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.