Union of India vs BASANT KUMAR PATRI

THIS appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1995 passed by the District Forum, Kamrup in C.P. Case No. 934 of 1993.

BRIEFLY, the case is that the respondent got the telephone No. 41776 installed at his residence at Athgaon, Guwahati in the month of March, 1992. After installation of the telephone, he received three bi-monthly bills - the last bill dated 1.9.1992 and Rs. 486/- being the average of these three bi-monthly period. Thereafter the telephone remained dead for the whole month of September, 1992. After the telephone was restored after several complaints found that STD dynamic locking system of the telephone non-functioning. He, therefore, lodged written complaint on 6.10.1992 with the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Guwahati about it. In the meantime, the respondent/complainant received a bill dated 1.11.1992 for Rs. 21,959.50 as the call charges from 16.8.1992 to 15.10.1992. Another complaint having been lodged on 17.11.1992, the appellant/opposite party furnished a provisional revised bill for Rs. 760/- as call charges, keeping the balance amount as disputed. The respondent/complainant paid the amount together with the rent charges of Rs. 200/- on 23.11.1992. Thereafter, the appellant/opposite party again furnished a duplicate bi-monthly excessive bill dated 1.1.1993 for Rs. 1,32,122/- for the subsequent period from 16.10.1992 to 15.12.1992 against which the respondent/complainant lodged a written complaint on 26.2.1993. In response to this complaint, the appellant/opposite party, furnished a consolidated bill dated 23.8.1993 by granting a rebate of Rs. 16,500/- for 15,000 calls in respect of bill dated 1.1.1993 and keeping the balance amount as disputed and asked the respondent/complainant to pay Rs. 9,700/- within 30.8.1993 to avoid disconnection. Being not satisfied with the rebate granted in respect of bill dated 1.11.1992 and the provisional bill dated 1.1.1993; the respondent/complainant again wrote to the appellant/opposite party on 24.8.1993 to reconsider the entire matter. The appellant/opposite party, however, disconnected the telephone and the respondent, therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum for deficiency in service and prayed for a direction to the appellant/opposite party to furnish fresh bills in respect of the disputed bills on the basis of this past average bi-monthly bill, to pay compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him and to restore his telephone connection.

The appellant/opposite party took the stand that for defect of the STD locking system of the telephone, the complainant to blame for not taking proper steps to rectify the defects. It has further been stated that after investigation, the complainant was given rebate and the bill was slashed down to Rs. 4,700/-, besides furnishing a provisional bill in respect of bill dated 1.1.1993. As the complainant did not pay the bill even after that, the telephone was disconnected on 28.12.1993. The District Forum after hearing both the parties found that the provisional bill furnished to the complainant was of much higher amount and not justified inasmuch as the telephone was functioning with STD locking system during the period covered by the bill. The District Forum also found that the complainant/respondent is entitled to receive split bill as per guidelines provided in Telephone Department''s Circular No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.1986, and hence the entire consolidated bill dated 23.8.1993 was set aside in respect of the disputed bills and directed the appellant/opposite party, amongst other, to prepare fresh bills in respect of bill dated 1.11.1992 on the basis of average calls metered in the previous six bi-monthly period of three bi-monthly period, if no bill existed beyond the three months period and to reconnect the telephone after payment of bills and other reconnection charges. The present appeal is against the above order of the District Forum.

HEARD Mr. Choudhary, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for the respondent. The main thrust of appellant''s argument is that on receipt of the respondent''s complaint, a consolidated bill was furnished to the respondent/complainant on 23.8.1993 with the direction to pay it by 30.8.1993 failing which the telephone will be disconnected. It is only after the failure to comply with the above direction that the respondent/complainant''s telephone was disconnected on 28.12.1993. The appellant also argued that the split bill cannot be furnished to the respondent/complainant in case of telephone with locking facility. It is found that the telephone was out of order for the month of September, 1992. After the telephone was restored on receipt of complaint, the STD dynamic locking system was not functioning. It has not been disputed by the appellant that the telephone was out of order and it was restored only after receipt of complaint. We find it difficult to agree to the contention of the appellant that the concept of average billing is no longer applicable in case of telephone belonging to business concern as the number of calls made during a billing cycle does not depend on a particular pattern but on the exigencies of work and necessity of circumstances. We feel that while it may be true in some case it would be preposterous to assume that this business concern and in this case the complainant made more calls during the relevant period and, therefore, the complainant is liable to pay as per the bill furnished by the appellant. We do not find any reliable document to support the contention of the appellant and hence we reject the argument of the appellant.

IT has also been argued by the appellant that in case of telephone with STD dynamic lock, the concept of average billing is not acceptable. As we have already mentioned earlier, the appellant has not denied that the telephone was out of order during the relevant period. IT is, therefore, axiomatic that the subscriber of the telephone is entitled to split bill. The respondent has reason to feel aggrieved for the excessive bills furnished by the appellant. We feel that the respondent is entitled to split bill for local call charges limited to the average of local calls billed in the preceding six bi-monthly period plus 10 per cent interest. In view of above, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to relief claimed in the complaint petition as decided by the District Forum and we, therefore, do not like to interfere with the orders passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no costs. Appeal dismissed.