UNION OF INDIA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM vs SATYA NARAIN LAL

THE District Forum by its order of 20th August, 1991 in case No. 89/90 directed that the Opp. Parties - Telephone Department etc. "should charge average of Rs. 324/- and Rs. 162/- (50% of average) i.e. Rs. 486 per bill in respect of the disputed bills dated 1.12.1988, 1.2.1989, 1.4.1989 and 1.6.1989 of the complainant and should refund within two months, the excess amount already recovered", the excess amount recovered being Rs. 7,952/-. It also directed the restoration of the telephone connection and awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental torture and financial loss. The respondent-complainant was also held to be not liable to pay rental from the time of disconnection till the date of restoration.

IN the appeal before it, the State Commission observed that the order of the District Forum that Opp. Parties should charge average of Rs. 486/-per bill does not suffer from any error and that the reasoning adopted by the District Forum to assess the average of the bills at Rs. 486/- did not call for any interference. However, it set aside the award of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation as according to the State Commission no grounds had been made out for award of compensation. The revision petitioner in the revision petition had cited the various rulings of this Commission wherein it is held that the Consumer Forums cannot legally recompute the telephone bills on the basis of the past average calls unless it is established either that the metering equipment is defective or there is evidence to show that there has been tampering and misuse of telephone line by third parties. This Commission had also observed that the fact that STD facility was being availed of by telephone subscriber has also to be taken note of in adjudication of dispute relating to excessive billing.

THE District Forum accepted the plea of the respondent-complainant that its previous bills prior to the first disputed bill of 1.12.1988 were generally within the free calls allowance; that a maximum bill of Rs. 530/- was received in 1986 prior to the bill dated 1st December, 1988, that inflated bills were sent on 1.12.1988, 1.2.1989,1.4.1989 and 1.6.1989, that no action was taken by the revision petitioner-Telephone Department on the complaints regarding inflated bills.

THE revision petitioner has explained that the respondent-complainant was maing trunk-calls previously and later on he started making STD calls when STD facility became available. The revision petitioner explained that he is unable to give details of STD calls because Exchange was not Electronic during the period of the disputed bills. Before the District Forum the revision petitioner also submitted that the investigations into the complaints were made with reference to the meter readings and fault cards, and no error was found in the bills raised. Unless there is evidence to show that the metering equipment is defective or there has been tampering with the telephone connection by third parties it would not be legally correct for the Consumer Forums to determine the bills on the basis of average of the calls made during the earlier periods nor is the Consumer Forum justified in disregarding the fact that the bills will be heavy if the consumer avails of the STD facility and that STD calls made are not recorded separately from local calls when the Exchanges are not Electronic. In the light of our examination of the facts and circumstances of this case and the rulings rendered by this Commission in similar cases earlier (i) Telecom Distt. Manager v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. R.P, No. 44 of 1990, (ii) District Manager, Telephones v. Niti Sarin R.P. No. 67 of 1990, (iii) Telecom Distt. Manager v. M.S. Mukherjee R.P. No. 111 of 1990, (iv) Telecom District Engineer, Dharmsala v. Pran Nath Mahajan I (1993) CPJ 99 (NC) we hold that there has been improper exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum and the State Commission in this case. The appeal is allowed and the orders of the District Forum and State Commission are set aside. There is no order as to costs.