DISTRICT MANAGER TELEPHONES Vs. NITI SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Manager Telephones, Chandigarh, has come in Revision before this Commission against the Order of the State Commission. The jurisdiction of the National Commission in revision has been laid down in Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is limited to consumer disputes wherein a State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. From a perusal of the order of the State Commission of the 5th April, 1989 and from a perusal of the memorandum of Revision Petition of the Petitioner no error of jurisdiction or any material irregularity or improper exercise of jurisdiction has been established. As such there is no ground justifying any interference by this Commission in Revision. In consequence the order of the State Commission will stand confirmed.

(2.) BEFORE , however, we part with this order we would like to express our disquiet over the manner in which the consumer disputes redressal forums have been disposing of the complaints from consumers regarding inflated bills issued by the Telephone Department. Whenever the Consumers (telephone subscribes) raise questions about excessive billing which, according to them, are not commensurate with the calls actually made, the Telephone Department rebuts the suggestion of inflated billing on the ground that the metering equipment was not faulty and that there is no misuse of the Telephones by the officials of the Department. To resolve such disputes the Redressal Forums have been taking recourse to ascertaining the average number of calls made from the particular telephone over a period of time to see whether the bills complained against show any abnormal or marked deviation from the pattern of calling derived from the average number of calls in a particular period. Thus, in this case the State Commission observed that "after a considerable thought we have decided average number of calls made on the particular telephone for about two years immediately preceding the period for which excessive bill is received may be determined. If the excessive billing is about 25% above the normal average user that should be considered as normal............But any rise beyond that should be taken notice of and should be treated on merits on the facts of each case. These observations would mean that the consumer forums are taking over the function pf estimating by application of a rule of thumb the precise number of calls made and the charges therefore in a particular period of time. Consumer ORDER Y. Krishan, Member This is an appeal against the order of the U.P. State Commission, Lucknow of the 20th of March, 1989on the preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and hear the complaint and the judgment of the same Commission of 13th April, 1989 on the merits of the reliefs including the compensation granted to the Respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was (i) a statutory body which did not undertake the activity of sale of goods or rendering service for a consideration, (ii) that it was engaged in the transfer of immovable property either in the shape of plots or in the form of built up houses and these activities were not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, (iii) that the Consumer Protection Act having been processed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies did not extend to the Appellant inasmuch as its activities were not within the purview of the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and (iv) the services rendered by the Appellant did not fall under the definition of 'service' given in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) IT is also evident from Section 2(o) that even though the Act has been processed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government of India, the Parliament has enacted it and there is no provision in the Act limiting it to subjects under the control of the Civil Supplies Ministry.