UNION OF INDIA vs Brij Mohan Khandelwal

THE above mentioned two sets of cross -appeals arising out of the commonly worded orders of the D.F., Tonk of the even date i.e., 27.9.1995 made in Complaint Nos. 12/94 by Brij Mohan Khandelwal and Complaint No. 121/94 by Balaji Trading Co., Tonk, involve identical facts and raise common questions of fact and law. These were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. For convenience the facts of Brij Mohans Complaint No. 120/94 are taken as representative facts for disposal of both sets of these appeals.

SHRI Brij Mohan Khandelwal, sole proprietor of M/s. Shree Nath Trading Company, Niwai, Distt. Tonk (the complainant) was, undisputedly, the consumer of the services of the appellants Telephone Deptt. at Niwai in respect of telephone No. 22287 which had STD facility. For the period from 16.2.1994 to 15.4.1994 the appellant delivered a bill for Rs. 34,074/ - in May, 94. The bill showed calls numbering 23863 during the aforesaid period. The complainant challenged his liability on the ground of excessive billing. It was also alleged by him that a number of other consumers like him were inssued similar bills with unjustified excessive liability and complaints were lodged with the appellants and the local Seva Samiti. It was further averred that detailed particulars of the calls recorded by the metering equipment were also asked for by the complainant. But the appellant did neither decide the dispute nor supply the required particulars of the calls. Instead his telephone was disconnected for non -payment of the disputed amount of the bills. In the course of pendency of the complaint Seva Samiti Niwai was allowed by the Forum to be arrayed as a party to the complaint.

THE plea taken by the appellant in their defence was that the dispute raised by the respondent complainant had been referred to the account officer at Sawai Madhopur and was pending for his consideration. For failure of supplying the particulars of the calls it was averred that the authority to supply such information lay with the District Telephone Officer at Sawai Madopur and not the Telephone Exchange at Niwai.

THE D.F. noted that the orginal liability of the complainant at Rs. 34,074/ - was later on reduced to Rs. 21,416/ -, Rs. 21,035/ - and Rs. 19,431/ - vide amended bills dated 18.7.1994, 30.8.1994 and 14.10.1994 respectively. The D.F. further noted that it was the admitted position that similar excessive billing was made for the same period in the cases of other thirty five consumers in whose cases also the liability was reduced from time to time. The D.F. observed that totally wrong and baseless excessive pulse rates were fed by appellants employees at Niwai Telephone Exchange which on raising disputes by them was reduced from time to time. But the basis adopted by appellants employees either at accounts office at Sawai Madhopur or at Niwai Telephone Exchange at Niwai, for reducing the liability of the consumer repeatedly was not disclosed. The D.F. further observed that despite demands the appellant did not supply the details of the calls recorded by the metering equipment in the case of the complainant. The D.F., therefore, concluded that the appellant had rendered deficient service to the complainant by raising unjustified excessive demand against him and disconnecting his telephone on the ground of non -payment of such demand. Looking to the loss suffered by the appellant in his business as also the mental agony undergone by him the D.F. allowed complainants Complaint No.120/94 vide order dated 27.9.1995 with compensation for mental agony and loss of business at Rs. 15,000/ - and cost of litigation at Rs. 1,000/ -. The D.F. cancelled the bill in question and directed the appellant to modify and recast the bill in question raising correct liability of the complainant within a period of 15 days, keeping the mistakes pointed out by the complainant in the details submitted by him on 8.6.1995 and deliver the same to him to be paid such re -cast liability by him within one month thereafter. Restoration of telephone service to the complainant within 24 hours was also ordered. Based on identical facts M/s. Balaji Trading Co., Niwai and Upbhokta Seva Samiti, Tonk as stated earlier had filed their Complaint No. 121/94. The D.F. has granted almost the same reliefs on same lines as were granted by it in Brij Mohan Khandelwals Complaint No. 120/94, referred to above.

NO separate order in respect of Seva Samitis intervention was however made by the D.F.

THE order made in Complaint No. 121/94 caused grievance to both the parties. Therefore, M/s. Balaji Trading Co. filed Appeal No. 2189/95 for enhancement of the amount of compensation and costs. On the other hand Union of India in its Telecommunication Deptt. has filed Appeal No. 2095/95 for cancellation of the order passed by the D.F., particularly relating to the realisation of the amount of cost and compensation from the delinquent and erring officials of the appellant at its Sawai Madhopur and Niwai Telephone Exchange Offices. The facts of individual appeals as narrated above were not only not disputed by the parties before us but also we find them fully established on record by the affidavits of the parties and the documents filed by them. It is not disputed by the Telephone Deptt. that wrong pulse rates were fed in the telephone calls recording equipments of the complainants resulting in raising unjustified and excessive demands against them. It is also a fact that the Accounts Section of the appellant at Sawai Madhopur had reduced the excessive demands repeatedly but no basis for such reduction was disclosed either upon the complainant or upon the D.F. and/or this Commission. It also goes unchallenged that despite demands made by the complainants in these appeals to supply the particulars of the calls recorded by their metering equipments, no information in that behalf was supplied to them. Transfer of accountability by the employees/servants of the same employer to their counter parts in other sections under the supervisory control of the same employer does not explain the deficiency in service on their part. Similarly, raising excessive demands against the consumers at its Will and then reducing such excessive demands by negligible amounts successively without disclosing the basis of either raising excessive demands at more than two occasions or reducing the same at Will exhibits a conduct of the concerned emplopyees of the Telephone Deptt. amounting not only to gross deficiency in service to the consumer -complainants by them but also causing avoidable loss to their business and mental agony to them. The very fact that a consumer society, besides the association of the trading community, had to take up the common grievance of a large number of consumers of the services of the Telephone Deptt. at Sawai Madhopur and at Niwai, Distt. Tonk, speaks a volume of lack of consciousness and sensitivity to consumers common grievances on the part of the concerned employees. The D.F. has, therefore, rightly decided the issues involved in all these appeals.

IN the facts and circumstances of these cases and for reasons recorded above we do not find a case of either increasing the quantum of compensation and costs or reducing the same by any amount in any of these cases. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with cost on parties. Appeals dismissed.