AMARJIT SINGH MANN Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Hoshiarpur dismissed the complaint filed by Amarjit Singh Mann on August 19,1996 that the complainant is in appeal challenging the aforesaid order. Amarjit Singh Mann is having Telephone No. MIP 40532 installed at his residential house in Village Tooto Mazra, District Hoshiarpur. He was regularly paying telephone bills since its inception. Surprisingly on December 11,1995, he received highly excessive bill for Rs.15,200/-. He represented to the Telephone Department. The bill was splitted into two. A sum of Rs.798/- was got deposited and it was subsequently that for the balance amount of Rs.14,399/-, the matter was kept pending investigation. The complainant received a letter on March 14, 1996 from the Telephone Department granting rebate of Rs.4,200/- out of the disputed bill and he was called upon to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.10,199/- on or before March 25,1996. Thus in the complaint, the challenge is to the aforesaid bill. Prior thereto, he was receiving telephone bills to the tune of Rs.500/- only. The excessive bill was due to defect in the machinery of the Telephone Department. During investigation, no opportunity was given to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in rendering service, he prayed for a direction to the Telephone Department not to claim more than Rs.798/-, which had already been deposited. A sum of Rs.10,000/- compensation was claimed on account of inconvenience and harassment suffered. Further direction was sought that the Telephone Department should not disconnect the telephone for non payment of amount of Rs.10,199/- on or before March 25,1996.

(2.) The Telephone Department submitted its version. While contesting the complaint, it was denied that the bill issued was excessive and illegal. It was issued as per meter reading; the complainant was having STD facility available on the telephone and he could use the same to that extent; splitting of the bill was also denied. After investigation, it was found that the bill was correctly issued as no defect in the metering enquipment was found. However, by giving benefit of doubt, rebate of 3000 calls i. e. Rs.4,200/- was allowed to the complainant. From that it cannot be gathered that there was any defect in the metering instrument. It was further assserted that the telephone had STD locking facility through secret code. There was no scope for misuse of the telephone. It was denied that prior thereto average consumption was to the tune of Rs.500/-. Both the parties produced evidence on affidavits and documents. In appeal, on behalf of the Telephone Department, fortnightly/monthly meter readings in respect of the disputed Telephone No.40352 for the relevant period commencing from May 25,1995 to January 25, 1996 has been produced, which also contains report observing as under : "spurt took place between 25.9.1995 to 10.10.1995. Though the subscriber enjoys STD facility but he is not in habit of using the facility. Highest calling rate is 1281 calls/fortnight. Whereas it recorded 10510 Units in one fortnight from 25.9.1995 to 10.10.1995 which may be due to some undetected technical fault. Rebate may be considered".

(3.) It is on the basis of the aforesaid report that rebate was allowed by the Department only to the extent of 3000 calls. There was spurt when meter reading was done on October 10,1995 and 10560 calls were recorded on fortnight basis. Prior thereto there were only 8 calls as per reading recorded on September 25,1995 and 190 calls as per reading recorded on August 25,1995. In the case of finding a spurt, it was necessary for the Telephone Department as per instructions issued by the Department to visit the premises of the subscriber to find out if there was any special occasion at the premises of the subscriber indicating spurt in the calls. If not, to find out the snag in the line. Nothing of the kind appears to have been done while finding spurt as observed above. While dealing with the instructions on the subject in Appeal No.1040 of 1996, Kamaljit Kaur V/s. Telecom District Engineerand Anr. , decided on June 5,1997, it was observed as under : "as per instruction 5.2 reproduced above meter readings are required to be taken every fortnightly to indentify such subscribers whose current reading show a sudden spurt. The moment such spurt is noticed, the telephone line is to be placed under observation by deputing responsible staff to the subscriber's premises to check up, there has been no special occasion which might have given rise in spurt. Instruction 5.4 further provides that somebody should be held personally responsible to identify and report of such cases of spurt. It further provides that if an excess billing complaint reveals a spurt which had not been reported, suitable educational and disciplinary notice should be taken of the concerned staff. Instruction 5.5 is specific on the subject that on noticing a sudden spurt, telephone lines are to be put on observations". Apart from the fact that spurt was found, the report submitted by the Telephone Department in appeal as referred to above also gives the probable cause for the spurt, which may be due to some un detected technical fault. If the spurt was on account of technical fault as observed above, maximum benefit was required to be given to the subscriber and not only to the extent of 3000 calls. Since instructions were not complied with as referred to above, the entire telephone bill is required to be quashed. It is so ordered.