Failure to follow guidelines for handling excess billing complaints and disconnection of telephone during the pendency of the complaint constitutes a deficiency in service.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—This is a case wherein the complainant who had a domestic telephone

at this residence used to get monthly telephone bill averaging Rs. 274 for two years i.e.,

from 1996 to 1998, suddenly got a bill for Rs. 1,124 on 11.6.1998 and Rs. 12,166 on

11.8.1998.

2. Complainant has alleged that telephone bills in respect of his telephone number 22082 are

excessive for the months of June and August 1998. The complainant had made personal

approaches and also has requested in writing to the department concerned to rectify the

bills but all in vain. Complainant has further stated that the bill for the month of June,

1998 was excessive but still the payment was made by the complainant. As the bill for the

month of August, 1998 was highly excessive, the complainant had made correspondence with the

department with no effect. The opposite part (O.P.) has stated that the phone of the

complainant was having STD facility and the said telephone was also provided with dynamic

lock facility to avoid misuse.

3. As per the complaint of the complainant, the O.P. has checked the telephone of the

complainant and everything was found normal. The complainant was also informed of about this

through a letter from the department. After due verification it was found that the excess

billing was incorrect. The complainant has further stated that his telephone was

disconnected without notice. For the above deficiency, the complainant has filed a case

before the District Forum.

4. The District Forum after going through the entire material facts has directed the O.P. to

revise the bill in dispute and pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant towards

mental agony and harassment.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent filed an appeal before the

State Commission, Ranchi. The State Commission after hearing the learned Counsel for the

appellant and considering the materials on record including the rejoinder filed by the

complainant/respondent allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the order of the State

Commission the complainant has filed this revision petition.

Findings:

6. The bill for Rs. 1,124 was paid by the complainant and the bill for Rs. 12,166 has not

been paid by the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum

the telephone department disconnected the phone on the ground that the telephone was used

for frequent STD calls, which could have been curtailed by using dynamic lock facility.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner quoted the guidelines issued by the department

vide order No. 4-59/85-TR dated 9.4.1986.

Subject : Disposal of excess metering complaints:

Advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint—

Detailed instructions have been issued separately in regard to watching the meter readings

of various subscribers and action to be taken on them.

These broadly consists of—

(a) meter readings being taken every fortnight;

(b) identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt;

and

(c) in case of such sudden spurts being noticed, placing the telephone line on observation

and deputing responsible staff to the subscriber’s premises to check up that there has been

no special occasion which might have given rise to such spurts.

It is possible that the excess bill exceeds the previous bi-monthly bills by substantial

amounts. In such cases, temporary relief to the subscriber by way of issuing a split bill

may be justified. As already prescribed a split bill may be issued if the bi-monthly bill

for local call charges exceeds double the maximum amount of the previous 6 bi-monthly bills

for local call charges. The split bill for local call charges should be limited to the

average of local bills billed in the preceding six bi-monthly periods plus 10% thereof and

should be issued with a clear statement that this is a purely provisional bill pending

further investigation into the excess billing complaint and if after investigation the