BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.



F.A. 1002/2006 against C.C. 103/2003, Dist. Forum, Machilipatnam





Between:



1) The General Manager

Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Vijayawada.



2) The Divisional Engineer

Telecommunications

Machilipatnam. . *** Appellants/

Opposite Parties

And

Thota Leela Prathap

S/o. Vidyasagar

D.No. 14/161-1

Nizampet

Machilipatnam. *** Respondent/

Complainant.



Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. S. S. Varma

Counsel for the Resp: Paper Publication



CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER





MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)



*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the telecom department (opposite parties) against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to waive the disputed bill of Rs. 4,441/- and adjust the same towards deposit amount together with costs.




2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was having telephone facility to his house for domestic purpose. He was receiving bills ranging from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 750/-. While so on 7.9.2003 he received a bill for Rs. 4,441/- with total local calls of 3384. In fact he made only 150 calls. It was undoubtedly a mistake on the part of the respondent. Though he addressed letters but of no avail. Therefore he filed the complaint to investigate into the disputed bill and waive the said bill and confine to an extent of average of 3 months calls together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.



3) The appellant telecom department resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant was a subscriber of telephone for his residence with STD facility contended that he had used excessive calls and as such bill worth Rs. 4,441/- for 3384 calls were billed. On the complaint made by him an investigation was made. The meter readings would establish the fact that he made local calls as well as STD calls. He was informed that excessive calls were made. Since he did not pay the amount telephone was disconnected. However, the same was reconnected by order of the Dist. Forum. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.



4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A13 marked, while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Engineer and got Exs. B1 to B7 marked.



5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that most of the bills show meagre consumption. The appellant could not show that the complainant had made 3384 calls. The bill was abnormal and therefore it directed the appellant to adjust the amount towards deposit amount and awarded Rs. 500/- towards costs.





6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the telecom department preferred this appeal contending that the disputed bill was issued as per the actual usage made by the complainant. A detailed enquiry was also conducted. The report shows that there was no irregularity while issuing the bill. At any rate he could have invoked the arbitration clause as provided u/s 7 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be dismissed.



7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant received a bill for Rs. 4,441/- for the period from 1.7.2003 to 31.8.2003 noting the net calls at 3284. The complainant alleges that he could not have made 3284 calls in a month. He also alleges that his monthly average bill ranged from Rs. 320 to Rs. 600/-. At no point of time it had exceeded the said amount. In order to prove the said fact he filed Exs. A2 to A13 various bills issued to him. It shows that he never exceeded the calls in any month.



8) The appellant alleges that the complainant had the facility of STD and the following meter readings would establish that he was making calls as mentioned below:

Date


LCL


STD


Bulk

30-06-2003


1161


37


1198

15-07-2003


1232


37


1269

31-07-2003


4399


37


4436

15-08-2003


4447


44


4491

31-08-2003


4538


44


4582







Total


3384



According to them this fact was informed on 13.10.2003 to the complainant under Ex. B1. In fact in Ex. B3 out door report furnished by the Junior Telecom Officer at Coloumn 7(h) for the question : According to subscriber how many times during a week he used STD and to what stations? He mentioned “Only locals”. Against coloumn 7(f) whether the telephone is accessible to persons other than subscriber? It was mentioned ‘only family members’.





9) It is no where mentioned that the department had observed spurt in calls, and the same had been intimated to the complainant. The National Commission in Telecom Department & Anr Vs. Rupa Gurang reported in III (2007) CPJ 431 (NC) referred to the guidelines issued by the Telecommunication Department for disposal of excess meter complaints, which also deal with advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint. The action to be taken includes (a) Meter readings being taken every fortnight; (b) Identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly reading show a sudden spurt and (c) In case of such sudden spurts being noticed placing the telephone line on observations and deputing responsible staff to the subscriber’s premises to check up that there has been no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts. In the present case, there was admittedly a spurt in the said period. The billing period is for two months and thus consists of four fortnights. The question which remain unanswered by the revision petitioner Department is the reason why advance action was not taken by them, especially when according to them, the guidelines are meant to maintain the confidence of the subscribers. It may be mentioned that the metering equipment remains under the possession and control of the Department and not under the control of the subscriber. In case of dispute equipment, therefore, the petitioner Department should produce objective basis for proving that the metering equipment was not defective. In the light of this and the fact that the availability of STD of the said phone had not resulted in inflated calls for the period relating to the disputed bill, it becomes incumbent on the part of the petitioner Department to substantiate and establish the evidence that the metering equipment was in fact not defective.



10) In view of the fact that the department could not establish or substantiate by way of evidence that meter/equipment was not defective, necessarily it must be held that the notice demanding the amount for excess bill must be struck down as illegal.



11) The Dist. Forum while holding that the bill was excessive, however, directed the same to be adjusted towards deposit amount which should not have been ordered since the deposit is made so long the telephone facility is used only when the facility is withdrawn amounts would be settled and return whatever amount is remained. At the most the amount could be adjusted towards future bills. Except for this modification, we do not see any irregularity either in appreciation of fact or law in this regard.



12) In the result the appeal is dismissed except for modification that the excess amount is directed to be adjusted towards future bills instead of deposit amount. No costs.



1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT







2) ________________________________

LADY MEMBER







3) _________________________________

MALE MEMBER

Dt. 20. 04. 2009.