DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELECOM MORADABAD Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 9.9.94 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Commission at Lucknow upholding the order dated 4.2.92 passed by the District Forum, Moradabad allowing the complaint and directing Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Moradabad to revise the bills of the complainant of

(2.) 8.91, 23.9.91 and 1.11.91 keeping in view the bills of past one year and of the abovesaid bills and whichever higher amounts come, 10% be added. The State Commission, however, modified the relief granted by the District Forum to the complainant and ordered (i) the bills pertaining to the period from August, 1990 to the date of disconnection including the bill of Rs. 986/ - (paid) were quashed, (ii) that the rebate in rent of telephone during the aforesaid period be given, (iii) that the telephone be reconnected within 30 days, (iv) a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - was granted and cost of Rs. 2,000/ - in the appeal. 2. We may notice the facts in brief. Telephone No. 6349 had been working for Shri Virender Kumar, complainant, installed at his shop with STD facility. He made a complaint before the District Forum. Moradabad alleging that his telephone bearing No. 6349 which had been running out of order for the past one year had not been put to order despite oral and written complaints and instead the complainant received bill of 4.3.91 for Rs. 4,286/ - and of 4.5.91 for Rs. 2,279/ - and that these bills being exorbitant and excessive were not paid with the result that the telephone was disconnected. The complainant amended his complaint and disputed bill dated 2.8.91 for Rs.6,143/ -, bill dated 23.9.91 for Rs. 12,701/ - bill dated 1.11.91 for Rs. 2493/ - and bill dated 4.1.92 for Rs. 200/ -. On being noticed the opposite party stated that the telephone of the complainant was working smoothly and there was no defect either in the instrument or in the meter and that the bills given to the complainant were as per metered calls. It was, however, pleaded that an ad interim rebate for bill dated 4.3.91 was given and the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 986/ - and the balance was kept under dispute and that the other bills are pleaded as correct.

(3.) 9.92. The State Commission went into the evidence on record and held that it had been proved that the telephone of the complainant had remained dead and defective since August, 1990 as a result thereof telephone service had not been made available to him in terms of quality, nature and manner of performance and he was deprived of the telephone service besides bills of inflated amount were being issued to him continuously since 4.3.91 to harass and torture him. The State Commission also found that the complainant by producing indirect and circumstantial evidence satisfactorily proved that the excessive bills were issued to him due to defective meter of the telephone or defect in the telephone line. The State Commission also held that due to continuous disruption of telephone service of the complainant and disconnection, his business was affected and his goodwill also damaged and he had to suffer mental agony and physical strain. The State Commission granted reliefs as noticed above. 4. We have heard Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein and Mr. R.S. Verma, Advocate for the respondent -complainant and have gone through the record. We will proceed on the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that it had satisfactorily been proved on the record that the excessive bills were issued to the complainant due to defective meter of telephone or defect in telephone line. The Telecommunication Department had also taken plea in its written version that when there is a defect in meter of the telephone or in the telephone line, then the subscriber instead of moving the District Forum should have taken action under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, but no action was taken by him. This Commission has taken the view that the Consumer Fora under the Consumer -Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction to entertain and decide a dispute which might be covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was not necessary that the disputes relating to meter readings can only be handled by an Arbitrator having technical knowledge of mechanism of meter reading and the Indian Telegraph Act, does not oust the operation of the Consumer Protection Act, in such cases. The Consumer Fora, therefore, have jurisdiction to decide disputes involving meter reading or excess billing even when such disputes might be covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The finding of fact recorded in this case is that the excessive bills are issued to the complainant due to the defective meter of the telephone or due to the defect in the telephone line. Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission went into the question as to the effect of these defects in the billing pattern. The State Commission has quashed the impugned bills without giving any further directions as to how the disputes relating to the billing have to be settled. If any dispute concerning any telegraph lines, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the disputes shall be determined by arbitration. This Commission has frowned upon the practice of some of the District Fora in quashing the telephone bills and directing the Telecommunication Department to issue revised bill on the basis of averages. When there is a defect in the meter or telephone line, the proper course is to grant the relief and direct the dispute being settled within the scope and ambit of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.