NAGINDAS BHIMJIBHAI MEHTA Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the complaint in which the allegations are made against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. for short, (M. T. N. L.) for rendering deficient service. Admittedly, the complainant's Telephone No.349556 (old) and (new) No.3449556 installed at the Godown showed maximum bill of Rs.643/- in a billing period commencing from 10.8.85 to 25.6.91. The dispute arose when Bill dated 15.9.1991 for Rs.19990/- and another bill dated 15.11.91 for Rs.40,909/- was received by the complainant. The complainant alleged that two bills are excessive. The M. T. N. L. splitted up each bill for Rs.634/- and complainant paid it immediately. On 18.12.1991 complainant applied for disconnection of the S. T. D. facility which was barred on 21.1.1992. Thereafter, complainant sent letter dated 7.12.1991 to correct the telephone bills mentioned above. Even then, the complainant received third bill dated 15.1.1991 for the billing period between 25.10.1991 to 25.12.1991 for Rs.21,500-60 ps. The complainant, therefore, filed this complaint on 30.11.1992 alleging deficiency in the matter of preparation of telephone bills with excessive billing and claimed a revised bill for 1,18,201 calls. The M. T. N. L. was sent a Notice u/sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 dated 9.3.1993 which was received by it, yet the M. T. N. L. did not file its written version and tried to oppose the complainant's claim by filing an affidavit dated 19.6.1993 from one Assistant Engineer Shri S. N. Prasad. In that affidavit, the M. T. N. L. submitted its defence stating that the equipment was functioning properly and normally and the readings show the complainant used S. T. D. facility. Beyond this no explanation has been given by the M. T. N. L. as to how the excessive bills were received by the complainant.

(2.) We have heard Shri Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant and Shri R. B. Chavan, Advocate for the M. T. N. L. Except the statement on behalf of M. T. N. L. that the equipments were functioning properly nothing has been said as to how the complainant received the excessive bills dated 15.9.1991,15.11.1991 and 15.1.1992, as against his previous average consumption for a billing period not more than Rs.643/-. According to complainant, the telephone in question was installed in the godown and it was used by the godown-keeper very sparingly and there could not be a question of excessive billing. It is also noteworthy that admittedly the S. T. D. facility of the complainant was disconnected on 21.1.1992. It is therefore surprising that the bill dated 15.1.1992 for the period 25.10.91 to 25.12.91 was for the amount of Rs.21,500.60. From the facts mentioned above, which are admitted, it is crystal clear that there is something wrong in the administration of billing of the M. T. N. L. The claim of M. T. N. L. is that all equipment was functioning properly. If that is correct, then there was no reason for the complainant to get a bill of Rs.21,500/- when his previous average bill show the maximum amount of Rs.643/- with S. T. D. facility. In ourview, the bills dated 15.9.91, 15.11.91 and 15.1.92 clearly demonstrates excessive billing and, therefore, we hold that there has been deficiency in the service of the Opp. Party M. T. N. L. in working out the proper bills based on actual use by complainant.

(3.) Although M. T. N. L. had sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the complainant about excessive billing, it had only stated that the equipment was now working properly and did not state anything as regards the cause of excessive billing. It is also noteworthy that as regards the bills dated 15.9.1991 to 15.11.1991, the M. T. N. L. split each bill for Rs.364/- and had thereby impliedly admitted that there was something wrong in the billing system of the M. T. N. L. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations of deficiency in the service of the M. T. N. L. as regards excessive billing. Hence, we pass the following order :-ORDER