The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy for consumers and does not oust them from seeking relief under the Act, even when disputes involving meter reading or excess billing are covered under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case of the complainant is that the complainant was the subscriber of 12 telephone lines including telephone connection bearing No. 3324457, installed at the office premises of the complainant situated at 505, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The telephone No. 3324457 was provided with STD facility but not dynamic STD control facility. However, the complainant received a bill dated 1.5.1990 for the period 16.2.1990 to 5.4.1990 for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 51,555/- despite the fact that the bill of the said telephone No. 3324457 had never exceeded Rs. 5,000/- in the preceding period of one year.

2. The complainant personally approached the Public Relations Officer of the O.P./MTNL and also submitted his representation regarding the excessive bill. On a further reminder from the complainant, the opposite party issued a provisional bill for Rs. 4,402/- which was promptly paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant received in succession bills dated 1.7.1990 for Rs. 99,485/-; bill dated 1.9.1990 for the amount of Rs. 82,836/-; and bill dated 1.11.1990 for Rs. 21,853/-. Immediately on receipt of each of the abovesaid bills, the complainant approached and represented to the O.P./MTNL for issuance of provisional bills but the said request of the complainant was declined. Even the successive representations of the complainant, for investigating the excess metering or in the alternative the possibility of misuse of the lines from outside the premises, were turned down by the opposite party on the ground that the matter had been investigated thoroughly and no fault had been found either with the meter, or any possibility of misuse had not been detected and as such the bills being correct were liable to be paid by the complainant. The request of the complainant for referring the matter to the Telephone Lok Adalat was also turned down by the O.P./MTNL and instead the matter was referred to the Area Manager of the opposite party. During the personal meeting of the Resident Director of the complainant with the Area Manager of the opposite party on 28.1.1992, a copy of observation of calls only for the period from 4.6.1990 to 15.6.1990 and 10.8.1990 to 14.8.1990 was supplied to the representative of the complainant which revealed that a number of National and International calls had been made from the telephone in question, before and after office hours and even on holidays whereas according to the complainant, the office of the complainant maintains strict timings of opening and closing in accordance with the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act and as such the office timings were 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. which were subsequently changed to 9.30 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. w.e.f. 1.3.1991 and the building in which the office of the complainant is situated is opened daily at 8.30 a.m. and is closed at 8.00 p.m. by the security personnel incharge of the said building. Therefore, there could be no possibility of its office staff misusing the said telephone line beyond office hours. As such it was alleged that the telephone of the complainant was being misused by outside agencies. The complainant’s representative, therefore, persued the matter with the Area Manager vide letter dated 1.2.1991 but received no response regarding the above grievances of the complainant that the telephone line of the complainant was being misused/diverted by outside agencies. It was further alleged that the Resident Director of the complainant Shri A.V. Karnik personally inspected the sealing and distribution point/cabinet from where the lines had been given to the premises of the complainant and found the same open and unlocked, whereby making it apparent that the lines were being misused. The O.P./MTNL on the other hand instead of taking suitable action and investigati