UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid nine appeals filed by Union of India through Secretary, Department of Telecommunication and others have been filed challenging the order of District Forum, Bharatpur dated 14.10.1993 by which the District Forum had accepted 9 complaints submitted before it and directed the Telecom Department that it would charge the complainants on the basis of average of three preceding bi-monthly bills by adding 25% on the average arrived at with respect to such three months local calls. It was further directed that the telephone should be restored on deposit of the revised telephone bills which will be given within 15 days. Rs.500/- were awarded as costs in each of the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order these appeals have been preferred.

(2.) It would be relevant to mention here that identical complaints regarding giving of the excessive bills had been filed before the same Forum which had been allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 8.9.1993. Thus almost only a month before the impugned order, an appeal against the said judgment was filed which came up for hearing on September 14, 1995 and the appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed. The said order is a detailed reasoned order and we will only mention the Appeal Nos.1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1987 and 2305 of 1994. The leading case is titled as Union of India V/s. M/s. Continental Contairers. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

(3.) To recapitulate the cases arise out of excessive billing regarding which protest had been lodged by the complainants. On their protest the Department examined their cases and they found that the bills were excessive and rebate was given to each of the complainant regarding certain number of calls. It was in view of the fact that the Department was of the opinion that there was strong circumstantial evidence the Telephone Exchange in Bharatpur had become obsolete and defective as it was too old to give efficient service. Once the Department itself has granted the rebate of considerable number of local calls to various complainants, to us it appears that two things were required to be explained while reducing the amount of the bills. One was to record the reasons for allowing the rebate and second the formula evolved for arriving at particular amount. Neither it has been shown that any investigation has been done and report obtained nor there is anything to show that a rational basis was made for giving uniform treatment to the complainants. This Commission in the earlier cases has held as under : "it does not distribute alms to consumers without any reason. No investigation report was produced by the Telecommunication Department to show the result of investigation made by them of the metering equipment after receipt of complaints from various consumers. The departmental directives unambiguously enjoined upon the Telecommunication Department to make internal as well as external examination or investigation in order to find out whether there was any defect in the metering equipment or in the telephone apparatus. In the circumstances of the case, when the Telecommunication Department itself, without showing that they had carried out any investigation, granted rebate of large number of local calls to various consumers, it is a strong indication that the Telephone Exchange was defective, the District Forum was correct in granting relief to the aggrieved consumers. It is deficiency in service if the Telephone Exchange is not kept in correct condition. The Telecommunication Department cannot derive satisfaction merely by granting rebates. "