TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER MEHASANA Vs. PATEL SHANKERLAL KEVALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the order dated August 26,1994 of the Gujarat State Disputes Redressal Commission confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana whereby the revision petitioners herein were directed to cancel their bill dated May 1,1991 for Rs. 32,616/- issued to the respondent-complainant and issue fresh bill on the basis of average calls recorded during the periods mentioned in the order of the District Forum. The revision petitioners were the opposite party (defendant) before the District Forum and appellants before the State Commission.

(2.) THE facts may be noticed briefly. The complainant carrying on business at Patan, Mehsana received a telephone bill dated May 1, 1991 for Rs. 32,616/- for 26,730 chargeable calls and rent in respect of his telephone No. 3780. According to him, the bill was excessive and he made a complaint to the opposite party on May 10, 1991 about the same. The latter issued an ad hoc bill for Rs. 2,628/- on May 17, 1991 and put the telephone under observation. As the opposite party did not find any defect in the meter or equipment, the complainant was called upon to pay the balance of the amount as per bill dated May 1, 1991. The complainant paid the bill and filed a complaint before the District Forum for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It was the opposite parties' contention that after the complaint was received by the Telephone Department, his telephone was kept under observation during which period no spurt in calls was noticed and there was no defect in the meter recording calls from the complainant's telephone. Opposite Party further added that the telephone was having STD facility and it was likely that in the course of his business, the complainant had made the calls as recorded in the said period.

(3.) WE have heard both sides and perused the records. There are three questions for determination namely, (i) whether there was a sudden spurt in calls in the billing period in question, (ii) whether recording meter was defective, and (iii) if defective, the basis on which the reasonable number of chargeable calls for the billing period in question should be determined. There are previous decisions of this Commission that it is not legally permissible to adopt the mode of computation on the basis of average for determining whether a particular bill is excessive or not, except in cases where there is evidence to show that there was some material defect in the metering equipment in the departmental exchange concerned. Therefore the case revolves around whether the metering equipment was defective or not.