MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. SUMAN KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to revise the bill for the cycle January, 1995 for the amount of Rs.1,04,554/- for the period w. e. f.15.10.1994 to 31.10.1994 by deeming that the respondent had made only 1702 calls the maximum class shown in the FNMR, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Respondent is proprietor of S. S. Investments and her telephone No.7523852 is installed at her premises with STD facility since March, 1993. For two years there was no problem but suddenly in the month of January, 1995 respondent received a bill for Rs.1,04,554/- and when the respondent requested the appellant to revise the bill on the ground that she had not made such a large number of calls during this period and there was some misuse of the telephone, the appellant did not take any action or decision.

(3.) The stand of the appellant is that the telephone of the respondent was provided with dynamic STD facility and, therefore, the question of misuse of the STD facility did not arise. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the dynamic STD facility is provided to prevent the misuse of the telephone but the possibility of a person not locking the facility after using it cannot be ruled out particularly in view of the astronomically high bill of Rs.1,04,554/- for the period of 15 days, whereas in the last three years the respondent has never received such an inflated bill. Even in case of dynamic STD facility the appellant authority has the mechanism of recording calls through FNMR. Had the appellant considered the request of the respondent by comparing the duration of the calls and the number of calls shown in the FNMR with the calls made by the respondent in the past, the problem would not have been compounded.