Telecom District Engineer vs RAGHUNATH GANESH KARMARKAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Aurangabad dated 25.11.1991 passed in Complaint No. 18/91. The respondent approached the District Forum making a grievance of excess billing. According to complainant, he left for excursion tour on 30.4.91 and returned to Aurangabad on 1.6.91. He further alleged that he had locked his house and nobody was using his telephone facility. It is the case of complainant that despite his house being locked he received a bill of Rs. 608/- for the billing period. The Department of Telephone opposed the claim of the, complainant.

BOTH the parties filed their respective affidavits. However, District Forum found that it is the case of excess billing and ordered the rebate of Rs. 210/- calls and also ordered the payment of Rs. 200/- as costs and allowed the complaint. We have heard Shri D.Y. Lavekar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri D.V. Soman, Advocate for the respondent have also gone through the record of the case.

According to Shri Lavekar, the system of meter reading is that no calls are taken into consideration after 5.00 p.m. on that day and they are counted in the bills on the next day. According to Shri Lavekar, 190 calls might have been registered upto 5.00 p.m. on 30.4.90 and, therefore, it came to be calculated for the billing period in question. The next submission of Shri Lavekar is that in view of the clear instructions from the telephone department, the complainant should have intimated the Department to keep his telephone in their custody with a view to avoid the complaint of excess billing. Admittedly such intimation was not given by the complainant. In any case, both the submissions are based on the assumption that 190 calls could have been metered upto 5.00 p.m. on 30.4.90. Except the presumption there is no supporting evidence to arrive at a conclusion that 190 calls are metered on complainant''s telephone by 5.00 p.m. As regards the intimation of keeping the telephone in safe custody is concerned it is really a useful facility for the consumer to avoid excess billing. It is the common knowledge that idle phones are always the targets of mischief for purposes of excess billing. In our view that cannot be the case here since the complainant''s house was totally locked and it has been stated on affidavit by the complainant.

SHRI Lavekar also submitted that the other contentions of the complainant that his average calls for a billing period could not exceed 650 or were low are immaterial for the purposes of this case. This complaint purely rest on the assertion of a fact made by the complainant that his house was totally closed on 30.4.90 upto 1.6.91.It is when the complainant tried to use his telephone he found that it was not working and, therefore, he complained on 1.6.91. The bill in question was received by him on 15.7.91. Shri Lavekar further pointed out that the impuged order is incorrect in as much as the Court could not grant Rs. 200/- to the complainant as costs by way of damages. It is true that in order to grant the claim of damages, the complainant has to give details of the loss suffered by him. In the instant case, no such material is placed on record and, therefore, Rs. 200/- on account of damages cannot be granted. Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, there is a provision to grant compensation and not damages. Therefore, also, in our view, the grant of Rs. 200/- by way of damages is not correct.

CONSIDERING the affirmation of facts of the complainant through his affidavit and the findings reached by the District Forum, we find no substance in this appeal and, therefore, it must fail. Hence we pass the following order : - ORDER The appeal is dismissed, subject to the modification of payment of Rs. 200/- as damages. However, we grant respondent Rs. 200/- as costs to be paid by the appellant within a month from today. Appeal dismissed.