U.S. DALAL vs TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ROHTAK, HARYANA

-WE are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that in the light of the decisions rendered by this Commission in District Manager, Telephones & Ors., Chandigarh v. Niti Sarin-R.P. No. 61 of 1990 reported in I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), Telecom District Manager, Patna v. Kalyanpur Cement-R.P. No. 44 of 1990, II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC) and Divisional Manager, Telephone v. Madhu Enterprises, II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC), the District Forum, Rohtak was perfectly right in rejecting the prayer of the complainant that a direction should be issued to the Telephones Department to reduce the amounts demanded in the disputed bills by adopting the average number of calls metered during six bimonthly billing periods immediately preceding the disputed bills as the basis of computation. The State Commission rightly rejected the complainant''s appeal against the well considered order passed by the District Forum and there is no justification for any interference by us with the impugned order of the State Commission in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is accordingly fails and it is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 1,000/-. Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member-I have gone through the order written by learned President with which Shri Y. Krishan, learned Member has concurred. However, I am of the opinion that in the present case the complainant has been able to prove that there was some defect in the metering system.

PARA 434 of Chapter XV, Volume-XIV of Post & Telegraph Manual which deals with the possible causes of false metering in case of STD stations and the procedure to deal with the same. The relevant portion of the said para reads as follows: "434 in cases of STD stations possibility of false metering under certain extreme conditions cannot be ruled out. It could be due to landing of the subscriber on an engaged switch train upto the point of outgoing carrier channel relay on set on which STD call is in progress. In some cases a held up condition of subscriber''s line after making a STD call could occur either on account of short circuit of the line of due to faulty operation of the hook switch.."

If any of the above happening takes place it may result in the meter recording local calls enormously excess of the normal rate for local subscribers.

In the present case on the complaint of the Complainant Department investigated the complaint and sent stereotype letter to the effect that the matter has been thoroughly examined and it has been decided that no rebate can be allowed in the bills. However, the Complainant has filed the investigation report prepared by the Department (at pages 47 & 48 of the paper book). Column No. 13 which reads as follows:- "How did you satisfy that excessive metering is due to false metering and due to use of STD facility availed."

Against that column it is written "due to EBT under Bank and held up on STD". According to the Complainant EBT means "Engaged Busy Tone" and thus the remark against column No. 13 will read as "Due to Engaged Busy Tone under bank held up on STD". The Complainant further explained in the Revision Petition that bank is part of equipment comprising a group of 100 telephone connections in ten series of ten each. The Department in spite of finding the above cause for excess metering sent a routine letter to the complainant.

THE Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunications issued a circular No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9th April, 1986 addressed to all Heads of Telecom Circles/Districts. That circular exhaustively deals with the problem of excess metering and suggests a manner of disposal of the complaints in that regard. THE department in the present case have not proved that the suggestions made in the circular for disposal of the complaints in regard to excess metering were followed in the present case. It is to be noted that in the present case the Department even did not inform the complainant if the metering system was found in order after investigations. THE subscriber was only informed that no rebate is possible. 6 In view of the above, I hold that the Revision Petition is liable to be accepted, disputed bill should be quashed and the Department should prepare a fresh bill on the basis of investigations and after hearing the complainant. 1 order accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision petition accepted.