Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 77 (UTT)

Kundan Singh v. Manager. B. S. N. L.

2004-05-25

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the complainant against the order dated 10.07.2003 passed by the District Forum, Pitthoragarh whereby the complaint of the complainant for reduction of the telephone bills was dismissed. Further, the telephone department was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5001- (Rupees Five Hundred) for not providing necessary information to the complainant land to pay interest @9% in case of delayed payment. 2. The telephone department did not file any appeal against the order of award of compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) within" a month and in default to pay interest @9% from the date of order till the actual date of payment. Therefore this order has become final. 3. The appellant has filed a complaint before the Learned Forum for reduction of the telephone bills because the calls were shown excessive and for reconnection & for compensation etc. it i" alleged that bill from 01.02.2000 to 31.03.2000 was sent for Rs.3,089/- (Rupees Three Thousand Eighty Nine), which is more than actual use. While the complainant has been issued bills only @250-300 calls regularly. It is alleged that written complaint was given but no reply was given by the telephone department. After this complaint the telephone department has always been issuing inflated bills and they issued bills from December 1999 to June 2000 of excessive amounts. On 12.02.2001. the telephone of the complaina'1t was disconnected. The telephone department did not hear. Therefore the complain was filed before the District Forum. 4. The telephone department filed written statement and alleged that from November 1999, the telephone of the complainant was connected from satellite and the revenue has increased from 10 to 20 times. The computerized bills of the complainant were filed and it is alleged that he is a reputed businessman. He makes calls regularly. All the bills have been issued according to calls. He has been deficient in making payment of bills. Therefore the telephone was disconnected. It is further alleged that dynamic lock facility was provided in the telephone of the complainant and he should have locked the telephone if he was not using it. It was alleged that after payment of the bills, the telephone could be connected. 5. After taking the evidence 01 the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum found that there is no evidence that the bills were excessive, therefore it dismissed the complaint to this effect, 6. It was alleged that after payment of the bills, the telephone could be connected. 5. After taking the evidence 01 the parties and hearing them, the Learned Forum found that there is no evidence that the bills were excessive, therefore it dismissed the complaint to this effect, 6. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The dynamic lock was provided to the telephone of the complainant and he should have used the dynamic lock. At least there is no allegation and there is no proof at all that the telephone of the complainant has been misused or there has been any metering defect. Merely because the complement says it, it cannot be sold that the bills were excessive. It is settled principle of law that the District Forums have got no jurisdiction by application of rule of thumb to say that this bill is inflated one or this bill is false one. 7. We have decided the case reported in II (2004) CPJ 439, Telecom Engineer.Vs. Hukum Singh, in which it has been specifically held on the strength of the ruling of the National Commission that the forums have got no jurisdiction to apportion the bill or to say by application by rule of thumb, (he precise number of calls what should have been. We have referred in this case the rulings of the National Commission reported in II (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), The District Manger Vs. Niti Saran & II . (1991) CPJ 579, Divisional Manager Telephones Vs. Madhu Enterprises. 8. We have also decided the case1"eported in'1 (2004) CPJ 410, Bharat Door Sanchar , Vibhag Vs. Janta Medical Store, wherein also the same view has been given. 9. The Delhi State Commission in the ruling reported in 1 (2004) CPJ 359, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. U.K. Bagrodia, has given the same view that the case cannot be decided on the basis of average calls by claiming bill excessive or incorrect: The Delhi State commission in this case has referred the ruling reported in 1 (1993) CPJ 99 (NC) , Telecom District Engineer, Dharamshala Vs. Pran Nath Mahajan. 10. The National Commission has also held in the ruling reported in 1 (1991) CPJ 48, The District Manager, Telephone & Others Vs. Pran Nath Mahajan. 10. The National Commission has also held in the ruling reported in 1 (1991) CPJ 48, The District Manager, Telephone & Others Vs. Niti Saran that where there is dynamic lock of the STD facility, it cannot be said that the telephone has been misused and it was further held in this ruling that the consumer forums are not legally justified to ascertain average number of calls made from a particular telephone over a period of time to see whether the bill show any abnormal or marked deviation from the pattern of calling derived from the average number of calls in a particular period, without adequate evidence. 11. The complainant has referred the ruling reported in 2002 (2) CPR 111 (NC) , U.P Pandey & Ors. Vs. Satnam Singh Chawla, wherein it was held that there is sudden spurt in billing cycle of telephone bill and there is complaint then investigation in terms of Govt of India Directions is necessary and failure will amount to deficiency in service. In this particular case, the investigation has been made and the complaint of the complainant was found to be false. 12. He further referred the ruling reported in 2002 (1) CPR 169 (NC), M/s. General Manager, Teiecom VS. Sh. Ajaib Singh. In this case the complainant remained without a telephone for 10 years, then compensation was granted. The facts of this ruling are quite dissimilar from the facts of the present case. 13. In view of what has been said above, this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.