WEST COAST INDUSTRIES Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is jointly filed by the complainants M/s West Coast Industries and by Bombay Telephone Users' Association alleging excessive billing by the Mahanager Telephole Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) Bombay.

(2.) The short facts are that the complainant No.1, M/s West Cost Industries had hired the services of opposite party, the M. T. N. L. for a FAX machine bearing No.341153 installed on 10.5.88. Thereafter, the FAX machine number was changed and new No.8550965 was given to the complainant. The change in the number was effected on 23.10.89. The complainant alleged that his earlier bills for the FAX Machine for a billing period used to be within the range of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. The last bill for the period 1.9.89 to 1.11.89 was Rs.28,986/-. In short, there was no abnormal variation in the bill between the period 19.5.88 till 23.10.89. The complainant alleged that "the bill dated 4.3.90 for the said FAX Machine was received for Rs.94,994/- for the billing period 23.10.89 to 18.12.89. It is asked as Exh. 'd'. The next bill for the billing period dated 18.12.89 to 15.2.90 was for Rs.1,32,486/-. It is at Exh. at 'f' The complainant raised the dispute with the opposite party by alleging excessive billing vide letter dated 9.3.90 as regards both the bills. In response to these two letters, the opposite party provisionally split the aforesaid bills to Rs.28,550/- keeping the balance of Rs.66,444/- in abeyance pending the investigation by the Divisional Engineer. A copy of that letter is at Exh. (I ). The said split bill was paid by the complainant on 23.4.90 with a forwarding letter. A copy is at Exh. 'k'. The complainant also received the third excessive bill dated 16.5.90 far the billing period of 15.2.90 to 31.3.90 (45 days) for Rs.85,454/-. It is at Exh. 'n'. The complainant further alleged that in order to convince the opposite party about their excessive billing, two parallel records of their FAX machine and TELEX machine were sent to the opposite party for purposes of comparison. It is further alleged that the M. T. N. L. without making proper investigation disconnected the FAX machine of the complainant on 15.10.90. The complainant further alleged that there was no response for his representations made to the General Manager, M. T. N. L. and, therefor, he was forced to file a suit for injunction in the City Civil Court. An injuction was granted on 30.11.90 which was vacated on 7.3.91. Thereafter, the complainant presented this complaint on 10.7.1991.

(3.) In response to the notice u/sec.13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party filed its written version. In the written version the opposite party denied the allegations of excessive billing. However, the opposite party raised the objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Commission on the ground that the bills in question were challenged by the complainant in a civil suit and, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable.