MADRAS TELEPHONES Vs. M SINGHARA VELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is admittedly the subscriber of Telephone No. 25 0 83 and, according to the averments made in the complaint, he is having this telephone facility since last 15 years. It is the case of the complainant that his house at Shahpur in Ahmedabad had remained closed, since last 4 to 5 years because he has shifted his medical practice and dispensary to Kalol town and he pays visit to his Shahpur house only on Sundays and, that, too, for the purpose of cleaning the same. Further, his children are staying in United States of America and the main purpose of retaining the telephone connection at Shahpur premises is to receive telephone calls in the morning on Sundays from his children, which is the arrangement made with his children since long. Further case of the complainant is that his Bills for this telephone were always within the minimum rate range since he had no occasion to dial either the local parties or to avail of the STD facility since last several years. According to the complainant, he received the Bill dated July 1, 1989 from the Telephone Department, demanding net amount of Rs. 10,943/ - containing of the following demands: - Telephone Rent: (2 months) 300.00 Local Calls: (10020) 10,642.50 10,943.50 Meter reading shown in the said Bill reads as under: - Previous reading: 9 24 0. Current reading: 19 26 0: Calls Metered: 10 0 20: Credit Calls: 00 0 10 Free Calls: 2 75: Net chargeable Calls: 9 7 3 5: The complainant was shocked on receipt of the said Bill for such a huge amount and, therefore, he raised a dispute and the telephone department noted that dispute in the Bill and as per the practice and rules, the department has given deduction of the disputed amount of Rs. 10,507/ - and directed the complainant to pay ad hoc amount of Rs. 436/ - .

(2.) IT is the practice adopted by the Telephone Department that when a complaint is made in connection with excessive Bill, they take average of last six months in which the rental amount of Rs. 300/ - for the instrument is also accounted for. The Telephone Department has not disputed that the complainant was getting telephone bills for petty amounts and it is also not the case of the telephone authorities that at any time in the past, the complainants Bill had exceeded to a sizable amount.

(3.) WE are also told that the department is taking fortnightly reading, and if any unusual figure is noticed, they are supposed and expected to investigate into the matter.