M T N L Vs. SIKANDAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Sikandar Dutta, complainant for short, has been subscriber of telephone No.310359 at his residence. The telephone had STD facility. The admitted case is that on 22.2.1988, the complainant applied for barring the STD. The complainant had been getting bi-monthly bill of 400 to 600 calls which he paid in time. Suddenly he received two excessive bills, the first one was dated 1.2.1993 (for the period 15.11.92 to 15.1.93) for Rs.2,441/-. He was allowed to deposit split bill for Rs.795/- pending investigation. The second excessive bill was dated 1.4.93 for Rs.8,997/- (for the period 16.1.1993 to 15.1.1993 ). The complainant again protested. An Inspector came to the house of the complainant and told him that STD facility had not been discontinued and that he should approach the SDO to discontinue the same. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the SDO and the Commercial Officer and ultimately STD facility was barred on 27.4.1993. The complainant claimed compensation besides appropriate revision of the disputed bills. The case was contested. It was stated that on receipt of request of the complainant to bar STD facility, instructions were issued to the concerned Exchange on 21.3.1988. It was, however, not disputed that actual barring was done only on 27.4.1993 after more than five years and two months. It was further stated that the complainant fully knew about the existence of the STD facility on the telephone. The telephone was kept under observation from 25.3.1993 to 2.4.1993. During this period on 30.3.1993 on ISD call was made which consumed 728 units. An investigation into the complaint of the complainant was made and no case was found for revision of the two bills.

(2.) On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum held that failure to bar STD for more than five years itself constituted deficiency in service. The circumstances of the case brought on record warranted the inference that the telephone line must have been diverted and misused by some unscrupulous person in connivance with the concerned staff of the opposite party and accordingly in terms of the instructions contained in opposite parties letter number 459/85tr dated 9.4.1986 relating to excess metering complaints, the opposite party was directed to revise the two bills on the basis of average during the preceding 12 months. It was also held that the investigation said to have been carried out by the opposite party appeared to be a mere eye wash. In addition to the above direction for revision of the disputed bills, the opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. The contention of Mr. S. Pattjoshi, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the mere fact that the opposite party failed to disconnect the STD facility was not sufficient to shift the onus of explaining the excessive bill on the opposite party for the simple reason that the complainant was aware of the existence of the STD facility. This was amply demonstrated when the telephone was kept under observation from 25.3.1993 to 2.4.1993. During that period one ISD call lasting for 12 minutes and registering 728 units was made on 30.3.1993. Mr. Pattjoshi invited our attention to Krishan Kumar V/s. GM, MTNL, 1993 2 CPJ 792, a decision rendered by this Commission. We have carefully considered this submission and we are unable to accept the same. There is no material on the record that the complainant knew that inspite of his request in writing made as far back as 22.2.1988, MTNL had not disconnected the STD facility. Once a person writes to the Department to bar STD facility, he is justified in thinking that the STD must have been barred. That will put him off guard as far as other persons using his telephone is concerned or when for short duration the telephone becomes dead. The complainant's belief that STD must have been discontinued stood confirmed as he continued to receive a bill which did not exceed 400 to 600 calls per billing cycle. In other words, the complainant had no reason to suspect that the STD had not been disconnected as requested by him. The present case is, therefore, distinguishable from the decision relied on by Mr. Pattjoshi which is confined to its own facts. It needs no big argument to show that failure to disconnect the STD, which was well within the right of the subscriber, per se constituted deficiency in service. In the facts of the present case, the undisputed fact that the complainant never had a bill exceeding 400 to 600 calls per billing cycle compels us to agree with the reasoning of the District Forum and for these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be communicated to the parties as well as District Forum-II appeal dismissed.