MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. M R CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bombay, by which it quashed the Telephone bills amounting to Rs. 1,71,980/- and directed the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short the Nigam) to prepare fresh bills for the period covered by the aforesaid bills in consultation with the complainant. It was further ordered that the telephone connection Nos. 6858493 (it should be 6058493) and 8557101 of the complainant be reconnected within a month from the receipt of the order. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The Nigam has come up in appeal against the order.

(2.) The facts relating to this appeal are that the complainant No. 1 Shri Mahendra Ratanshi Chheda is having a photo-studio at Bombay under the name of M/s. Jayendra Focus Art (complainant No. 2) at Bombay. A new telephone connection bearing No. 665493 was installed pursuant to the order dated 5th March, 1978. The telephone had STD facility. On 8th September, 1978 the complainant wrote a letter to the Nigam requesting to disconnect the STD facility from his telephone. Vide letter dated 6th October, 1978 the Nigam informed the complainant that the STD facility in respect of the said telephone had been withdrawn. On 28th January, 1989, the number of the telephone in question was changed from 665493 to No. 6085493. However, the telephone bills used to be sent under the Old No. 665493 till 21.8.1989. According to the complainant his telephone bills earlier never exceeded the amount of Rs. 1,000/- with an average of Rs. 600/-in a billing period. It may be mentioned here that the bill dated 21st August, 1989, for the period 1.6.89 to 1.8.89, was for Rs. 576/- including trunk call charges of Rs. 162/-. Immediately after receipt of the said bill sometime in September, 1989 some officer of the Accounts Department of Malad Telephone Exchange of the Nigam telephoned the complainant and asked him to deposit the bills. A representative of the complainants-respondents went to the office of the Nigam and then he was handed over two bills dated 15.6.1989 for the period 18.3.89 to 18.5.89 for Rs. 22,371/-and a bill dated 15.8.89 for the period 18.5.89 to 18.7.89 for a sum of Rs. 36,350/-. The complainant wrote a letter dated 16th September, 1989 addressed to the Accounts Department of the Nigam alleging that the bills were abnormal and exorbitant since there was no STD facility on the telephone. It is further the case of the complainant that before they could recover from the shock of the a foresaid two abnormal retrospective bills, they were served with another bill dated 1.10.1989, for the period 15.7.89 to 18.9.89 for an incredible amount of Rs. 1,13,233/-. The complainant again wrote to the Accounts Officer to which they were informed that their complaint dated 16.9.89 had already been forwarded to the Divisional Engineer for investigation. The Divisional Engineer vide letter dated 6.11.89 gave a mechanical reply stating that "it is clear that you (respondent) have been using the STD very frequently and there is no abnormal metering". In the meantime, the telephone of the complainant was disconnected in September, 1989 for non-payment of the bills. Another telephone of the complainant was also disconnected for the non-payment of bills.

(3.) The Opposite Party, the Nigam contested the complaint. It will be better to give the narration of the Nigam from the memorandum of Appeal. According to it, the telephone bearing No. 665493 was working with STD facility and hence, the new No. 6058493 was also provided with STD facility on 28th January, 1989. It appears that the complainant had applied for restoration of the STD facility and accordingly as per the records, the STD facility was functioning from the beginning. On account of the allotment of the new number to the complainant, the complainant's previous telephone No. 665493 was allotted to one Suit. Durga Ramesh Kalia. Anyhow, the name of the said Smt. Durga Ramesh Kalia was not fed to the Computer Billing Section and therefore, the bills dated 21st April, 1989, 26th June, 1989 and 26th August, 1989, for Rs. 290/-, Rs. 290/- and Rs, 576/- were issued in the name of the complainants but the meter readings of the said telephone and the amount calculated on the basis of the metered calls were of the Old Telephone No. 665493 later on allotted to Smt. Durga Kalia and hence the said bills were cancelled . The Nigam also tried to explain how this mistake has happened but it is not necessary to dilate upon it. It is further the case of the Nigam that the initial bill in respect of the complainant's telephone No. 6058493 was bill dated 15th April, 1989 for the billing period from 18th January, 1989 to 18th March, 1989 that is to say from 28th Junuary, 1989 to 18th March, 1989 was for Rs. 11,017/- (metered calls 10,060). Subsequent bills were also tried to be justified on the ground that those were according to the metered calls. Thus, the Nigam tried to justify the issuing of the bills as well as the disconnection of the telephones of the complainants.