The Accounts Officer and Another Vs. Sri Sai International Travels - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1114429
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnMar-31-1993
Case NumberC.D. Appeal No. 127 of 1990
JudgeA. VENKATARAMI REDDY, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MR. POTHURI VENKATESWARA RAO, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. J. ANANDA LAKSHMI, MEMBER
AppellantThe Accounts Officer and Another
RespondentSri Sai International Travels
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - case referred: ii (1991) cpj 579 (nc)=1992 (1) cpr 8. (relied) [para 4] comparative citation: 1993 (3) cpj 1244a. venkatarami reddy, president: 1. the respondent herein who is a travel agent, is having a telephone connection no. 5925 with s.t.d. facility and later on some time in april 1990, the telephone number was changed from 5925 to 8678. but so far as this case is concerned, the telephone number during the relevant period is 5925. the travel agent, that is, the complainant has also another telephone connection bearing no. 5708 under o.y.t. scheme, for which, he had deposited a sum of rs. 6,000/- on 28.10.87. alleging that usually he is getting bills between rs. 2,000/- and rs. 6,000/- and that in the month of 1.7.1989 he got the bill for rs. 1,828/- for 1.9.89 rs. 8,930/- and for 1.11.89 rs. 11,232/- which are far excessive than the usual bills and that such excessive bills can only be either due to mechanical defect in the telecom system and also due to malpractices. he claimed for directions to revise the bills dated 1.7.89,1.9.89and 1.11.89 by deducting the said bills for sum not exceeding rs. 450/- each or any reasonable amount; (2) to direct the respondent to refund the deposit amount of rs. 6,000/- paid by the complainant towards o.y.t. (3) and to award a sum of rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. 2. the opposite party filed a counter stating that the calls are correctly recorded by the meter and the charges are not excessive. it was also stated that necessary investigation was made into the complaint and it was found by the director of the tele-communications that there was no defect. 3. so far as the bill dated 1.7.89 is concerned, the complainant did not question the same. therefore, the district forum rejected the relief in regard to that bill. so far as the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 are concerned, the district forum after taking into consideration the earlier bills, felt that the two bills issued were excessive and that, herefore, directed the complainant to pay rs. 1,500/- for the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 each. with regard to the o.y.t. deposit, the district forum directed the refund of rs. 4,595/- after deducting the charges for the calls made. it did not grant any relief with regard to the claim of rs. 10,000/- and rejected the same and awarded costs of rs.250/-. 4. aggrieved by the order of the district forum in so far as it related to the payment of rs. 1,500/- under each bill dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. mr. b. narayana reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted relying on the divisional manager, telephones, lucknow v.mis. madhu enterprises, lucknowof the national commission reported in ii (1991) cpj 579 (nc)=1992 (1) c.p.r.page no.8, that the complainant has not established that there is either defect in the meter or that any malpractices were indulged by the department. in the above decision, it was held by the national commission that: "unless, therefore, it can be established that the metering equipment is defective or has been manipulated, the calls metered for a particular telephone by the department would form the proper basis of billing. it is not open to the consumer forums to determine arbitrarily the maximum number of calls that ought to be metered for the propose of billing in respect of a particular telephone number." in view of the aforesaid decision of the national commission, we are satisfied that the complainant has not established that there is any defect in the meter or there is any malpractice indulged by the department. 5. it is submitted by mr. m.v.r. reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent that at the time when the case was argued before district forum, they are not aware of the judgment of the national commission and, therefore, they had no opportunity to put forth any material before the district forum to establish that there is any defect in the meter or that there are any malpractices. but in view of the judgment of the national commission, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the district forum in so far as it related to two bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89. since the determination is whether there is any defect in meter or any malpractices were indulged by the department is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of material to be adduced by the parties. we consider it appropriate that the appellant, that is the opposite parties, shall refer the matter to an arbitrator under sec. 7(b) of the indian telegraphic act, 1985. it is open to the complainant to move the arbitrator to appoint a senior officer of the telephone department to check-up the meter relating to the complainant telephone number whether it is working properly or not and on such request being made, the arbitrator shall appoint a senior officer of the department to check the meter and submit the report to the arbitrator. 6. it is submitted that already a sum of rs. 5,162/- (rupees five thousand one hundred and sixty two only) was deposited towards these two disputed bills. we further direct the complainant to deposit a further sum of rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with the first appellant, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. on making such deposit, the department shall not take any proceedings for disconnection of the telephone pending decision of the arbitrator. 7. the appeal is disposed of accordingly. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:

1. The respondent herein who is a travel agent, is having a telephone connection No. 5925 with S.T.D. facility and later on some time in April 1990, the telephone number was changed from 5925 to 8678. But so far as this case is concerned, the telephone number during the relevant period is 5925. The travel agent, that is, the complainant has also another telephone connection bearing No. 5708 under O.Y.T. scheme, for which, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 28.10.87. Alleging that usually he is getting bills between Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- and that in the month of 1.7.1989 he got the bill for Rs. 1,828/- for 1.9.89 Rs. 8,930/- and for 1.11.89 Rs. 11,232/- which are far excessive than the usual bills and that such excessive bills can only be either due to mechanical defect in the telecom system and also due to malpractices. He claimed for directions to revise the bills dated 1.7.89,1.9.89and 1.11.89 by deducting the said bills for sum not exceeding Rs. 450/- each or any reasonable amount; (2) to direct the respondent to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 6,000/- paid by the complainant towards O.Y.T. (3) and to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation.

2. The opposite party filed a counter stating that the calls are correctly recorded by the meter and the charges are not excessive. It was also stated that necessary investigation was made into the complaint and it was found by the Director of the tele-communications that there was no defect.

3. So far as the bill dated 1.7.89 is concerned, the complainant did not question the same. Therefore, the District Forum rejected the relief in regard to that bill. So far as the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 are concerned, the District Forum after taking into consideration the earlier bills, felt that the two bills issued were excessive and that, herefore, directed the complainant to pay Rs. 1,500/- for the bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 each. With regard to the O.Y.T. deposit, the District Forum directed the refund of Rs. 4,595/- after deducting the charges for the calls made. It did not grant any relief with regard to the claim of Rs. 10,000/- and rejected the same and awarded costs of Rs.250/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum in so far as it related to the payment of Rs. 1,500/- under each bill dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted relying on the Divisional Manager, Telephones, Lucknow v.Mis. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknowof the National Commission reported in II (1991) CPJ 579 (NC)=1992 (1) C.P.R.page No.8, that the complainant has not established that there is either defect in the meter or that any malpractices were indulged by the department. In the above decision, it was held by the National Commission that:

"Unless, therefore, it can be established that the metering equipment is defective or has been manipulated, the calls metered for a particular telephone by the Department would form the proper basis of billing. It is not open to the Consumer Forums to determine arbitrarily the maximum number of calls that ought to be metered for the propose of billing in respect of a particular telephone number."

In view of the aforesaid decision of the National Commission, we are satisfied that the complainant has not established that there is any defect in the meter or there is any malpractice indulged by the department.

5. It is submitted by Mr. M.V.R. Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent that at the time when the case was argued before District Forum, they are not aware of the judgment of the National Commission and, therefore, they had no opportunity to put forth any material before the District Forum to establish that there is any defect in the meter or that there are any malpractices. But in view of the judgment of the National Commission, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum in so far as it related to two bills dated 1.9.89 and 1.11.89. Since the determination is whether there is any defect in meter or any malpractices were indulged by the department is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of material to be adduced by the parties. We consider it appropriate that the appellant, that is the opposite parties, shall refer the matter to an Arbitrator under Sec. 7(b) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1985. It is open to the complainant to move the Arbitrator to appoint a Senior Officer of the Telephone Department to check-up the meter relating to the complainant telephone number whether it is working properly or not and on such request being made, the Arbitrator shall appoint a Senior officer of the Department to check the meter and submit the report to the Arbitrator.

6. It is submitted that already a sum of Rs. 5,162/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred and sixty two only) was deposited towards these two disputed bills. We further direct the complainant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with the first appellant, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On making such deposit, the department shall not take any proceedings for disconnection of the telephone pending decision of the Arbitrator.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.