GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Telephone Department challenges order of District Forum, Amritsar dated August 6, 1997 passed on the complaint of Partap Singh in this appeal. A direction was given to the Telephone Department to restore the telephone of the complainant within 10 days from the payment of revised bill of rent and calls made previously for six months basis for the disputed period alongwith rental charges of the telephone, which was kept in safe custody.

(2.) Telephone No.2233 was installed at the premises of Partap Singh in village Bhaini Sidhwan, District Amritsar. On September 6, 1991, the complainant applied for debarring STD facility, which request was accepted on November 4, 1991. Again on November 8, 1991 the complainant asked for restoration of the facility aforesaid, which was provided on November 15, 1991. It was on August 17, 1993 that the complainant applied for safe custody of the telephone as he was to go abroad. This request was accepted. In September the complainant went to U. S. A. and returned on March 1, 1994. Three bills of arrears due of the aforesaid telephone were issued. The first bill was dated July 1, 1993 covering period from April 15 to June 15, 1993 for Rs.22,152/-. The second bill was dated September 1, 1993 covering the period June 16 to August 15, 1993 for Rs.3,362/- and the third bill was of November 1, 1993 covering the period August 16 to October 15, 1993 for Rs.590/-. Total of these three bills was Rs.26,107/-. The complainant made a representation that the bills aforesaid were excessive. This representation did not find favour with the Telephone Department and the complainant was asked to pay the same on August 30, 1995. The same having not been paid, he made another request for revision of the telephone bills, which was rejected by the Excess Metering Committee on May 30, 1996. Ultimately the telephone was permanently disconnected. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, the aforesaid three bills were challenged and in consequence challenge was also to the action of the Telephone Department in disconnecting the telephone connection. According to the complainant, such excessive bills were issued by the Telephone Department for such number of calls which were not made by the complainant and perhaps were made by the employees of the Telephone Department. The Telephone Department submitted its version broadly admitting the facts as stated above but stated that the bills were correctly issued as per meter reading recorded. Other allegations were denied. The District Forum on going through the evidence of the parties produced on affidavits and documents came to the conclusion that the pattern of meter reading recorded by the Telephone Department of this telephone indicated very less number of calls being made by the complainant, however the disputed bills related to very excessive calls. It was further held that even after deposit of the telephone in safe custody several calls were made from the aforesaid telephone number which indicated misuse of the telephone of the complainant and hence the impugned order was passed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department Mr. G. C. Babbar, Advocate has argued that the District Forum was not justified in directing the Telephone Department to charge for the disputed period on the basis of average of the previous months. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the National Commission in Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa V/s. Mrs. Sheela H. N. Gaunekar, 1996 1 CPJ 49 (NC ). On going through the aforesaid judgment, we notice that the ratio therein cannot be applied to the case in hand. In that case there was no allegation of defective meter in or tampering with the connection by the employees of the Department. It was observed that FORA was not justified in reducing the amount of the bill on average basis. The present is a peculiar case where allegations were levelled against the employees of the Telephone Department of misusing the telephone of the complainant. Thus the question for consideration in the present case is whether there was evidence to hold that the telephone of the complainant was factually misused by the employees of the Telephone Department or not. As already stated above, the telephone of the complainant was kept in safe custody on August 17, 1993. From the material produced as discussed in the order of the District Forum as well as subsequent thereto, the meter of the telephone recorded use of the line which per se would be evidence of misuse of the telephone of the complainant by the employees of the Telephone Department. There were two factors which were noticed by the District Forum and we have verified from the record the same to be correct. The meter reading for the period August 15, 1993 to August 31, 1993 indicated use of the telephone for 1550 calls. Factually the aforesaid number of calls if the complainant had used the telephone were for the period August 15, 1993 to August 17, 1993. For two or three days how such number of calls were effected is a mystry. Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department tried to explain that during those days, the complainant was making preparation for visiting abroad and hence such number of calls must have been made by him. This contention would have been accepted if there had been no other evidence of misuse of the telephone by the employees of the Telephone Department. It may further be observed that for the period October 15 to December 18, 1993 again the meter recorded use of the telephone for 6 calls. No explanation is coming forward on the record on behalf of the Telephone Department how such calls happened to be recorded, more so when the telephone was kept in safe custody of the Department itself and the line was not in use. These two factors to our mind are sufficient to hold that the telephone of the complainant though kept in safe custody was not in the knowledge of some of the employees of the Telephone Department that they continued misusing the same in spite of the fact that the complainant after depositing the telephone with the Telephone Department had gone abroad. If that is so, no further evidence was required to be led by the complainant with regard to the excessive use of the telephone during the disputed period of three bills referred to above. Prior thereto the use of the telephone was normal and there was no complaint from either side. It was when the first bill of July 1993 was prepared that it showed spurt that the bill for Rs.22,152/- stands issued.