TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Telecom Department being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the District Forum, Mehsana in Complaint No.171/92 decided on 14.8.92 has filed this appeal. There is no dispute that the complainant is a subscriber of telephone number 3399 and his average bill was in the vicinity of Rs.1600/-. It appears that he received a bill dated 1.3.91 for Rs.3253/- for which he made a complaint. Since there was a mistake, the trunk call charges of Rs.60/- was deducted. It appears that the complainant has filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat bearing Special Civil Application No.2030/91 which was ultimately withdrawn by the complainant since the Department agreed for the time being that he may deposit an amount of Rs.1690/- and if the same is done, the Telephone Department may not disconnect the phone. It appears that the complainant has not paid the said bill.

(2.) Thereafter the complainant received another bill dated 1.7.91 for Rs.3147/- It appears that no complainthas been made against this bill. On 1.11.91 the complainant received a bill for Rs.7309/- which was more than double the previous two bills and he was really aggrieved by such a bill he made a complaint. He also knew that since his telephone was kept under observation and naturally he would try to make minimum use of the telephone. Even then the bills appeared to be more than double. It also appears that the complainant has filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.65/92. It was agreed before the High Court that the Manager of Telecom District will hear the parties and the petition will be treated as representation made by the petitioner and decide the same within 4 months. If he is not satisfied, he can file a fresh petition. Permission and liberty was, therefore, granted by the High Court to withdraw the petition which was dismissed and rule discharged.

(3.) The complainant was heard by the District Manager and an order has been passed. Being dissatisfied with the said order the complainant filed a complaint. Allegations are made that the complainant was not using the STD facilities at all and his complaint was not attended to with the intention to misuse the consumer's STD facility for any other purpose or to oblige some other consumers. In other words, allegation was made that though the complainant was not utilising the STD facilities, his complaint was not attended to properly because the Department wanted to utilise the complainant's telephone facilities for obliging other consumers. There is no allegation that the metering equipment was not proper or that there was any defect in the lines. The only question before the learned Judge was whether the consumer had utilised the STD services to the extent of the amount shown in the bill or somebody else has utilised either with the consent or connivance of the Department. The learned Judge has also observed that there are complaints regarding misuse of STD facilities by miscreants and on arriving at this conclusion, the District Forum has directed the Department to charge the complainant on average bill basis. We have considered the evidence before us. But considering the previous history that the petition was filed for the first bill which was withdrawn and no steps have been taken by the complainant, it can be said that he has waived the dispute regarding the bill since the bill was not very much. So far as the 2nd bill dt.1.7.91 is concerned, there appears to be no complaint or writ petition. However, so far as the 3rd bill dated l.11.91 is concerned, definitely the consumer is aggrieved because that bill was more than double of the previous two bills. We therefore feel that when the complainant was agitating for the excess bills and when he was making a specific allegation that this STD facilities are being used by somebody elese, it was the duty of the Department to keep watch i. e. to keep the telephone under observation [computer] which is not done since the computer was not working at that time. Therefore, it was not possible for the Department to check and find out as to who was actually using the STD facilities. If the computer was not working it was not the fault of the complainant when he was aggrieved and making representations. Taking over-all view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the 3rd bill is definitely excessive and there is no reason for the complainant to say that he has not utilised the STD facilities to this extent. Since there is no other method to arrive at an exact finding, we have to estimate after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the 3rd bill is reduced to the level of previous bill dated 1.7.91 i. e. Rs.3147/- it will do justice to both the parties. We, therefore, estimate the bill dated 1.11.91 at Rs.3147/-. The complainant is entitled to that relief.