TELECOM DISST ENGINEER DHARAMSHALA Vs. PRAN NATH MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) passed an order in Complaint No. 18/90 Pran Nath Mahajan Vs. Telecom District Engineer, Dharamsala and Another on 9.1.1991. The complainant before the District Forum had alleged that the bill for the period from 16th November, 1988 to 15th January, 1989, issued on 1st of February, 1989 for Rs. 3,086.00 was excessive. On his representation of the 6th of February, 1989 the Telecom District Engineer split the bill: Rs. 1.494.00 was required to be paid immediately and the balance Rs. l,592.00 was treated as under dispute to be investigated. On 7th March, 1990 the District Telephone Engineer rejected the subscribers complaint of excessive billing and required him to deposit the balance amount. In June 1990, the District Forum directed the General Manager, H.P. Circle of P & T to review this bill. The General Manager, after review, came to the conclusion that there was no error in billing.

(2.) Before the District Forum, the Appellant Telecom District Engineer submitted that the complaint regarding excessive billing had been investigated in detail at different levels and the meter had been kept under observation and thereafter he came to the conclusion that there was no over-billing. The Appeallant further pointed outthat the telephone has STD facility which explains the increase in number of local calls during the period under dispute and therefore, the complainant's representation was rejected.

(3.) The District Forum reviewed the fortnightly meter reading chart from 15th of July, 1968 to 15th of July, 1989 and also from 15th of July, 1989 to 15th of July, 1990 and found that it was only in one lone fortnight i.e. from 15th December to 30th December, 1988 that there was an abrupt and abnormally excessive spurt in local calls made. In no other fortnight, either preceding or succeeding thereto there was such an abnormal rise in the calls made except in the two fortnights in January, 1990. The increase in the number of local calls in the latter fortnights has been properly explained. In other fortnights in the one year period from 15th July, 1988 to 15th July, 1989 the number of local calls ranged between a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 720 or an average of 400 or so whereas the number of calls shown in the disputed period of December, 1989, was 2,490. The District Forum, therefore, come to the conclusion that the respondent-Telecom District Engineer had failed to satisfactorily explain the grossly excessive number of calls registered in disputed fortnight of December, 1988. It was held that the department has failed to disdose the material on which it had relied in dealing with the representation of the complainant about excessive billing and held that the rejection order passed by the Telecom Distt. Engineer was arbitrary and whimsical. It concluded "in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the abrupt and abnormally excessive spurt in the local calls, and without ruling out fully and completely the chances of mechanical factors as are admitted a few of the possible causes by the Posts and Telegraphs Manual itself, we are afraid we cannot uphold the right of the respondents to recover from the complainant the amount of Rs. 1.592.00 presently held under dispute." The District Forum, therefore, canceled the demand to this extent.