Back
2002(2) CPR(NC) 111
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.P. Wadhwa. President; J.K. Mehra and B.K. Taimni. Members
U.P. Pandey and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Satnam Singh Chawla - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 358 of 1998
Decided on 8-4-2002
IMPORTANT POINT
When 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.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 and 14 - Excessive telephone billing complaint - Distt. Forum allowed complaint only to extent of directing respondent to restore telephone connection - On Appeal by complainant State Commission directed petitioner to revise bills on basis of highest telephone bill during last six months plus 10% for relevant period - Revision - Contention that direction to recast bill on average basis was correct and matter ought to have been referred for arbitration under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act - Petitioner Dept. had failed to follow instructions of Govt. of India vide Order No. 4-59/85-TR when there was sudden spurt in calls and there was complaint from consumer - It was deficiency in service - Order of State Commission has followed in spirit the purport of instructions in terms of Government of India directions - Period of dispute being 1989 no useful purpose would have been served in directing action u/s. 7(b) of the Act - No merit in revision.
Held: On perusal of the material on record and on hearing the arguments advanced by the parties we find that average bills before the period in dispute ranged between Rs. 620/- to Rs. 2.355/- for the bi-monthly billing cycle. There is a sudden spurt in the billing cycle of 1.8.89 amounting to Rs. 36,115/- Instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of Directions vide its order No. 4-59/ 85-TR dated 9.4.1986 are relevant here.(Para 4)
Further held: There is nothing on record to show that the complaint made by the Complaint with regard to higher bills was investigated as per procedure laid down in these instructions State Commission in our view have followed in spirit the purport of these instructions. There has to be a limit to arbitrariness. Complaint is made it is not investigated. In our view the Petitioner failed completely to notice the spurt in use of telephone and to take follow up action as per their own instructions.(Para 6)
It will be correct to state that this Commission has been sending the cases involving quantum dispute for arbitration under clause 7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act but we also see the time frame in this case. The period of dispute in the instant case is the year 1989 almost thirteen long years ago. No useful purpose would be served by suggesting action as per Section 7(b) at this stage. Order of the State Commission is only a reflection of spirit of the instructions on the subject.(Para 7)
Result: Revision dismissed.
B.K. Taimni, Member - This Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission allowing the appeal filed by the complaint against the order of District Forum only partly allowing the complaint.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Complainant had a telephone connection at his residence for which he was paying regular bills till for the period 1.10.1989 to 1.4.1990. he got three high value bi-monthly bills for Rs. 30.050/- 14.920/- Rs. 5.330/- and Rs. 5.961/- to which the complainant protested. The Respondent after some discussions/correspondence reduced the number of calls and revised the Bill to Rs. 18.760/- Rs. 3.125/- Rs. 2.785/ - with no reduction in the last bill. Complainant not being satisfied with the reliefs and alleging deficiency on the part of the Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent of directing the Respondent to restore the telephone connection after completing all the formalities. On an appeal filed by the Complainant and after hearing both the parties, State Commission directed the Petitioners to revise the telephone Bills on the basis of highest telephone bill during the last six months plus 10% for the relevant period, restore connection on payment of these bills and payment of cost assessed at Rs. 2,000/- It is against this order that the Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.
3. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri B.K. Aggarwal that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. Telephone was working all right and the bills are based on correct readings. The State Commission erred in directing payment of Bill on average basis which has not rationale. In similar cases, this Commission has referred the case for arbitration under 7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act and at best this is what ought to have been done in this case. Concession given to the Complainant by way of reduction in the number of calls during the disputed period should not be taken as admission of deficiency. It was done as a matter of grace. The order of the State Commission need to be set aside and Petition be allowed. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Khanna, ld. Counsel for the Complainant that it need to be seen that as per past billing. Bills never exceeded around Rs. 2,000/- or so. There has been no occasion - social or otherwise resulting in increase in calls and concomitant such high bills It is the duty of the Petitioner to take immediate cognizance whenever there is unusual spurt in the Bills. Presenting such high bills when they are not warranted, it self is a deficiency. The order of the State Commission is very well reasoned and detailed: no interference in the order of the State Commission is called for.
4. On perusal of the material on record and on hearing the arguments advanced by the parties we find that average bills before the period in dispute ranged between Rs. 620/- to Rs. 2,355/- for the bi-monthly billing cycle. There is a sudden spurt in the billing cycle of 1.8.89 amounting to Rs. 36,115/- Instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of Directions vide its order No. 4-59/85TR dated 9.4.1986 are relevant here. Para 5 of these instructions provide as under:-
5. Advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint.
5.1 Detailed instructions have been issued separately in regard to watching the meter readings of various subscribers and action to be taken on them.
5.2 These .broadly consist 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 notice 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.
5.5 As far as possible all telephone line sh
