MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. WEST COST INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 26th May, 1992 passed in Complaint No. 118/91 by the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay. The said complaint was filed by the present Respondents against the present Appellant. According to the allegations in the complaint, Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for installation of a Fax Machine at their premises in or about May, 1988 on telephone No. 341153. The said machine was approved w.e.f. 10th May, 1988. The last bill in respect of telephone No. 341153 for the period of 1st September, 1989 to 1st November, 1989 was received by Respondent No. 1 and it was for Rs. 28,986/-. From 23rd October, 1989 the number of said telephone was changed to 8550965. It was the case of the Complainant that from 10th May, 1988 till 23rd October, 1989 there was no abnormal rise in the bill. However, the first bill in respect of telephone No. 8550965 dated 4th March, 1989 for the period from 23rd December, 1989 (the date of change in number) to 18th December, 1989 (i.e. for 57 days) was received by the Complainant and it was for an amount of Rs. 94,994/-. On receipt of the said bill Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with the Appellant on 9th March, 1990 pointing out the excessiveness of the bill in question as compared to the bills of preceding six months. The Complainant received another bill dated 15th March, 1989 for the period from 18th December, 1989 to 15th February, 1990 and it was for Rs. 1,32,280/-. The Respondent No.1 again lodged a complaint with the Appellant making reference to the first complaint made on 9th March, 1990 and requested the Appellant to inquire into the matter. In response to these letters the Appellant provisionally split up the first bill to Rs. 28,550/- keeping the balance of Rs.66,444/- in abeyance pending the investigation by the Divisional Engineer. The Respondent No.1 paid the said provisional bill. Respondent No.1 received the third bill dated 16th May, 1990 for the billing period 15th February, 1990 to 31st March, 1990 and it was of Rs. 85,454/-. For the satisfaction of the Appellant-Department, the Complainant Respondent No.1 sent to the Appellant two parallel records of the Fax machine and telex machine for the purpose of comparison. The case of the Complainant is that without making proper investigation the Appellant disconnected the Fax machine on 15th October, 1990.

(2.) It was the further contention of the Complainant that no proper investigations had been made upon his complaint and he was informed by a cyclostyled letter that the Divisional Engineer had confirmed the meter reading as indicated in the bill dated 5th March, 1990 and therefore the amount kept in abeyance did not need any revision. Such a stereotyped letter did not furnish any convincing reasons for the spurt in the bill immediately from the date of the change in the number of telephone. There was no corresponding increase in the telex number installed at the premises nor in respect of other telephones installed at the business premises as well as residential premises of the partners of the Complainant Firm. The Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for injunction in which ad interim injunction was first granted but later on it was vacated. Thereafter the complaint was filed.

(3.) The Opposite Party in the complaint i.e. the present Appellant merely denied the fact that there was any excess billing. No counter affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party denying the allegations of the Complainants. (It may be mentioned here that Complainant No. 2 who is the Respondent No. 2 herein is Bombay Telephone Users Association).