MAHENDRA RATANSHI CHHEDA Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is about the excess billing of telephone. The complainant is a partner of complainant No. 2. The complainant was having a photo-studio at Bombay. The complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for a telephone bearing No. 665493. The complainant got the telephone installed at his Studio on 2-3-1978. The complainant had written a letter to the opposite party on 8-9-1978 requesting to disconnect the S.T.D. facility for his telephone. The opposite party by a letter dated 6-10-1978 informed the withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility in respect of his telephone No. 665493. Thereafter on 20-1-1981, the number of the telephone in question was changed to No. 6058493. However, the telephone bills used to be under the Old No. 665493 till 21-8-1989. According to complainant his telephone bills never exceeded the amount of Rs. 1,000/- with an average of Rs. 600 in a billing period. The complainant placed on record the statement of bills from 1-12-1978 to 21-6-1989 at Exh. D. The complainant further alleged that the bill dated 21-8-1989 for the billing period 1-6-1989 to 1-8-1989 was for Rs. 576 including trunk call charges. The next bill dated 15-6-1989 for the billing period 18-3-1989 to 18-5-1989 was for Rs. 22,371/- and subsequent bill dated 15-8-1989 for the billing period of 18-5-1989 to 18-7-1989 for Rs. 36,356/-. The complainant alleged that he was asked to pay for the aforesaid bills for the retrospective period. The complainant also again received two bills dated 21-6-1989 and 21-8-1989. The complainant, therefore, wrote a letter to the opposite party dated 6-9-1989 alleging that the aforesaid bills are excessive in absence of S.T.D. facility. The complainant disputed the correctness of the said two bills marked O Exh. E, E-1, E-2 and E-3. The complainant further alleged that before he could recover from the shock, the third excessive bill dated 1-10-1989 for the billing period 18-7-1989 to 18-9-1989 received by him was for Rs. 1,13,233/- It is at Exh. G. The total of the aforesaid three bills show complainant in arrears of Rs. 1,71,980/-. The opposite party vide its letter dated 6-11-1989 replied to the complainant that he used the S.T.D. facility frequently. Thereafter, the complainants telephone was disconnected in September, 1989 for nonpayment of the aforesaid bills, without following the usual procedure.

(2.) THE opposite party filed its written version dated 4-9-1991 and denied the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. It has been submitted by the opposite party that the S.T.D. facility in respect of the complainants phone was functioning during the disputed billing period. It is also submitted that the unaddressed bills dated 15-6-1989 and 15-8-1989 are correct bills for the telephone No. 6058493 which belongs to the complainant. It is further submitted that regular computerised bills were not issued during the period 18-3-1989 to 18-7-1989 for the reason of the area transfer. It is also submitted that the Telephone Bill dated 21-6-1989 and 21-8-1989 for Telephone No. 665493 are not the bills issued to the complainants. It is also submitted that the complainants first complaint dated 16-9-1989 has been filed after telephone was disconnected on 7-9-1989: It is further submitted that the complainant used the S.T.D. facility for making telephone to Ahmedabad against Telephone No. 0272811271 of Rasikbhai. It is also denied that there was any possibility of tapping and faults in respect of the complainants telephone.

(3.) MS. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party unsuccessfully tried to explain that the telephone numbers from Ahmedabad mentioned in Exh. II of the opposite party are the numbers of complainants relatives and, therefore, the S.T.D. facility was used by the complainant, although it was withdrawn by the Department. The argument is fallacious and untenable unless the opposite party repudiates its letter dated 6-10-1978 showing the withdrawal of S.T.D. facility in respect of the complainants telephone. It cannot lie in the mouth of the opposite party to submit that despite the disconnection of S.T.D. facility the complainant used the S.T.D. facility. If that is the argument, then the question arises as to when the S.T.D. in respect of the complainants telephone was withdrawn and why he was allowed to use S.T.D. facility without the permission of the opposite party? It was also tried to be argued that the parties can use the S.T.D. facility by tapping the telephones. In our view, all these arguments are nothing but a pitiable attempt on the part of opposite party to justify its deficiency in the service. In the result we allow this complaint. In our view, this is a typical case of excess billing and the complainant cannot be made liable to make the payment of the S.T.D. calls which he could not make due to the withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility by the opposite party in the year 1978. The opposite party has utterly failed in establishing by convincing evidence that the S.T.D. facility was made available to complainant to his Telephone No. 6058493 after its withdrawal. The complainant has claimed in his complaint application the restoration of the telephone lines No. 6058493 and 8557101. He claimed that the telephone bills dated 15-6-1989, 15-8-1989 and 1-10-1989 amounting to Rs. 1,71,980 be declared as bad in law. The complainant also claimed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,71,980/- be either waived or the opposite party be injuncted from recovering it. The complainant did not claim any compensation. In our view, the complainant has been very reasonable in his approach to his Commission. As regards the disconnection of his telephone facility we find that his telephone lines were disconnected for non payment of excessive bills. The opposite party could not take this drastic step unless the excessive bill was split up and the complaint of the complainant about excessive billing was investigated under the rules. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant deserves reconnection of his both telephone lines. We are also of the view that the complainant cannot be made to pay the bills shown in Ex. II as he could not have used the S.T.D. facility since it was withdrawn. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not liable to pay the excessive bills in question. Hence, we pass the following order :