TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER PATNA Vs. KALYANPUR CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 22nd March, 1990 of the State Commission, Bihar, Patna, raising important questions of law.

(2.) UNDER Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the National Commission in revision is severely limited. The National Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute decided by the State Commission where the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In other words, the jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited to disputes where there has been wrongful, illegal and improper exercise of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction. It has not been established that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction in this case not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. As such this Commission is unable to entertain this Revision Petition.

(3.) THERE is no evidence to show that the metering equipment was defective or that it had been tampered with or manipulated so as to inflate the bills. It is also not correct to assume that there has to be a pattern of making telephone calls from a telephone; the number of telephone calls made by a subscriber can fluctuate considerably for many reasons. The subscriber in this particular case, the consumer is a commercial concern and there is every likelihood that the telephone calls in a period of time may fluctuate widely. It may become necessary to make a fair and just determination of the calls made on the basis of the calling pattern over a period of time, only if it is established that the metering equipment is defective, or has been tampered with or manipulated, resulting in the bill being inflated. It is true that one cannot altogether rule out the possibility of such tampering or manipulation of metering equipment and the consumer must be protected against such malpractices. It is however, not open to the Consumer Forums to base a finding of the bills having been inflated merely on the basis of suspicion and it will be not right to assume that there was something wrong with the mechanism without evidence and without identifying the precise defect in that mechanism. We cannot go by our subjective impressions about the reasonableness or otherwise of a bill which is based on readings from a mechanical equipment. With these observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed.