GENERAL MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATIONS Vs. MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is a medical practitioner. He has a phone facility with indicator No.31991. From the date of installation of the telephone, till September, 1995, the telephone bill did not go above Rs.500/- per bill. While so, on 1st September, 1995, the bill amount was shown in a sum of Rs.1,268/-. The complainant contacted the opposite party and requested them to rectify the mistake and refund the excess amount. The opposite party submitted that there was no mistake in the meter and the question of refund does not arise. They did not rectify the mistake. They also failed to put the phone under observation to find out whether there was any misuse of the phone. But in the next bill for November, 1995 the amount was shown as Rs.4,890/-. The complainant called upon the opposite parties to show the details of the calls made by him. It was found that 4/5th of the calls were not made by the complainant and the members of his family and the numbers that were contacted were not at all connected either with the profession of the complainant or his family. Bringing it to the notice of the opposite party, the complainant wrote to them. But the opposite party rejected the complainant's complaint. Hence a legal notice was issued. Hence the complaint.

(2.) The opposite parties filed their version stating that the phone was installed on 20.9.1994 and is connected to Electronic Exchange where there are facilities to record all call details. The complainant is disputing the bills dated 1.9.1995 and 1.11.1995. Such disputes can be only settled by means of arbitration. On investigation with regard to the complainant's bill dated 1.9.1995, it was found that there was no fault to cause excess metering. The bill was thus based upon the actual calls made and calculated accordingly. Since there was no excess billing, the complainant's request was rejected. Similarly, as regards the bill dated 1.11.1995, investigation was made and it was found that there was no fault. The complainant has not paid the arrears till 20.5.1997. Therefore, the Department disconnected the phone of the complainant on 20.5.1997. There is no contractual liability. There is no deficiency in service.

(3.) The Lower Forum by its order dated 20.10.1999, allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to give fresh bills for September, 1995 and November, 1995 by eliminating the STD calls mentioned in the disputed bills and to restore the disconnected phone forthwith.