V.N. Mishra, Member:
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.1994 passed by the District Forum, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1/94.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's telephone No. 22262 is defective. It frequently gets cross-connected with other telephones resulting in false metering causing inflated bills. This defect has been persisting since several years and it has not been rectified by the opposite parties inspite of several complaints made by the complainant.
3. The complainant had filed a Complaint Case No. 63/91 before the District Forum, Gaya. It was mutually agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties during the pendency of the complaint case that average bills will be furnished by the opposite parties to the complainant and excess amount paid by the complainant, if any, will be adjusted in future bills. The District Forum passed consent order and directed the opposite parties for its compliance. The average bills for the six bi- monthly bills for the first year of the disputed bills for three years worked out to Rs. 409/-. But the opposite parties had realised Rs. 13,215/- from the complainant for bills starting from 21.10.1988 to 21.8.1991. The complainant had thus made excess payment of Rs. 6,667/- which was to be adjusted against his future bills. But the opposite parties wrongfully disconnected the telephone line of the complainant on 23.12.1993 in violation of the agreement and against the orders of the District Forum. Opposite party No. 2 refused to consider the two representations filed before him by the complainant. The complainant was subjected to lot of harassment and disgrace because of mala fide and vindictive disconnection.
4. The complainant therefore prayed thatâ
(a) his telephone connection may immediately be restored;
(b) the eight bills for Rs. 8,638/- sent by the opposite parties on 15.11.1993 pertaining to period from 11.8.1992 to 11.8.1993 may be corrected to Rs. 1,400/-. This amount may be adjusted against the excess amount of Rs. 6,667/- already paid by the complainant;
(c) the opposite parties may pay to him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused to him;
(d) the opposite parties may change the defective cable and remove the cross- connection problem.
(e) the opposite parties may not send wrong and inflated bills until the above defect is removed.
5. The opposite parties, on being noticed, filed written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. The allegation of cross- connection of his telephone with the other telephone and wrong metering was found to be baseless after investigations. The Gaya Exchange is computerised and the department found no fault in the system and in the metering of the telephone calls. The opposite parties had requested the complainant to pay the outstanding bills which were not disputed. The opposite parties once again wrote to the complainant on 15.11.1993 to clear the outstanding dues barring the disputed bills within one month. But the complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues as a result of which his telephone line was disconnected on 23.12.1993. Disconnection of telephone was never done for non-payment of bills involved in Complaint Case No. 63/91. The opposite parties further contended that they had preferred appeal against the order dated 9.9.1992 passed in that complaint case which was yet pending before the State Commission. The alleged excess payment made by the complainant according to the above impugned order cannot be adjusted against future bills. The complainant yet, if aggrieved, should have sought relief by invoking provisions under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act for arbitration. But the complainant without exhausting the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act hastily rushed to the Consumer Court. The Consumer Redressal Forums cannot adjudicate disputes in respect of inflated bills according to various decisions of Redressal Commissions. The opposite parties therefore prayed that the complaint petition may be dismissed.
6. The complainant, in his petition filed on 1.6.1994 before the District Forum, stated that since the telephone connection had not been restored even after more than five months he may be compensated for loss and damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day from the date of disconnection. He also prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from charging any rental during the period of disconnection and re- connection charge.
7. The complainant filed affidavit sworn by Shri Rakesh Kumar Sinha and two other witnesses and his own affidavit in support of his complaint petition and also his amendment petition dated 1.6.1994. The opposite parties also filed affidavit sworn by the D.E.T., Gaya supporting the contents of their written statement. The D.E.T. has further clarified in his affidavit that there cannot be any scope of manual fiddling with the metering equipment in electronic exchange. Excess recording in meter cannot be recorded due to cross connection. He also alleged that affidavits of three witnesses filed by the complainant are false and cannot be reliable as the witnesses are the complainant's friends and close relations. He reiterated that no defects in the cable or telephone was found on checking of the complainant's telephone line and telephone.
8. He further stated that the complainant had filed a Misc. Case No. 1/94 on 6.1.1994 against disconnection of telephone line for alleged disobedience of the order dated 9.9.1992 passed by the District Forum. The above misc. case was dismissed after hearing as the impugned order dated 9.9.1992 was not final then.
9. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to reconnect the telephone line and pay Rs. 50/- per day as compensation to the complainant with effect from the date of disconnection till one day before reconnection. The District Forum further directed the opposite parties to furnish bills to the complainant limited only to the rentals and also not to charge rental for the period of disconnection with further direction to reconnect the telephone line.
10. Being aggrieved by the above orders the opposite parties preferred appeal before this Commission which was finally heard.
11. It is found on perusal of the record that it is not disputed that the complainant had earlier filed a Complaint Case No. 63/92 in respect of inflated telephone bills wherein the D.F. had passed consent orders for averaging the bills. It is not disputed that the appellant had filed an appeal against the above order. It is also not disputed that payment of telephone bills from August, 1992 to August, 1993 had not been made by the complainant. It is again not in dispute that the telephone line of the complainant had been disconnected on 23.12.1993. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 9.9.1992 passed by the D.F. in Complaint Case No. 63/92 had not attained finality on 23.12.1993 i.e., the date of disconnection of the telephone line because of non-payment of the arrears barring the disputed bills.
12. The important issues thus that emerge for our consideration are :
(a) Whether disconnection of telephone line was wrongful and illegal ?
(b) Whether the claim of the complainant that he is liable to pay Rs. 1,400/- only against eight bills amounting to Rs. 8,638/- according to the opposite parties is allowable ?
13. We have carefully perused the documents and evidences produced by both the parties. We find that Rakesh Kumar Sinha has sworn affidavit to say that he found the complainant's telephone line frequently cross- connected when he talked from his telephone No. 23505. Jitendra Kumar Singh and Harishwar Deo Prasad Singh similarly sworn affidavit to support that there was problem of cross- connection in the telephone of the complainant. They have not indicated anything in their affidavit to show that cross-connection leads to excess metering. They would have also faced similar problem of inflated bills as faced by the complainant. But they have not brought copy of even one complaint letter written to the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite parties on the other hand have alleged on affidavit that the witnesses are either the complainant's friends or relatives. Their limited knowledge about the working of computerised exchange does not inspire us to place reliance on their versions.
14. Further, it is found that the telephone line of the complainant was disconnected on 23.12.1993 for non-payment of eight telephone bills sent to the complainant on 15.11.1993 with the request to make payment within one month. The opposite parties could have disconnected the line on 15.12.1993. Yet they made the disconnection one week after hoping that the complainant would clear the bill even during the extended period. The disconnection, therefore, appears to have been done by the opposite parties in due discharge of the responsibility cast upon them by the department. The disconnection is thus not wrongful and illegal according to Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules.
15. The total amount of these bills in question according to the opposite parties is Rs. 8,638/- on the basis of actual meter reading. But the complainant feels that his calls were limited only to permissible credit calls and as such he is liable for payment of rental only which comes to Rs. 1,400/-. We could have relied on his version if he could have produced his own register to show date-wise the number of calls made by him. The complainant himself has averred that he is not keeping good health. His two relations are ailing at Patna. He must therefore have been using the telephone for medical advice. He also must have frequently been contacting his men at Patna to find out the condition of his ailing relations. The highest amount of bill in the disputed bills is for Rs. 1,756/- which does not appear to be improbable in such circumstances. The complainant has not specifically alleged that metering equipment of the exchange is defective or there was tampering in the electronic exchange or misuse of telephone by the employees of the department. The complainant has only alleged cross-connection of his telephone with other telephones. Such cross-connection by any flight of imagination cannot cause such extra meter reading. Had it been so, his three witnesses would have faced similar problem. But they have not alleged any extra billing in respect of their telephone. The complainant could have verified his claim by seeking print-out of the calls made. The opposite parties on the other hand have furnished bi-monthly bills giving the initial and final reading of meter. We are thus not convinced that excess billing in respect of the bills in dispute has been done by the opposite parties. There is therefore no scope for us to interfere with the bills furnished by the opposite parties to the complainant. We are supported in our decision by the order of National Commission passed in Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Panaji, Goa v. Mrs. Sheela H.N. Gaunekar, reported in I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC)=1996 (2) CCC 601 (NS). The order dated 9.9.1997 passed by the District Forum suffers from material irregularity and cannot be sustained. The dispute in our opinion is not fit even to be sent for arbitration under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act as there is no disputes between the parties concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus. We are fortified by the decision of National Commission in Divisional Engineer and Anr. v. Harkishan Bhattad, reported in II (1996) CPJ 11 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer (2098) NS. This State Commission vide order dated 20.9.1994 has however confirmed the impugned order dated 9.9.1992 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 63/92. The complainant will therefore be entitled to get his subsequent bills adjusted against excess amount, if any, deposited by the complainant. The complainant will also be entitled to get his telephone line restored on payment of entire arrear. He will also not be liable to make payment of any rental during the period of disconnection of his telephone.
16. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
17. There is no order as to cost.
Appeal allowed.