Orissa

Kendujhar

74/1996

Sri A.K. Nayak, OFS (I) - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Telephone Divisional Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 1997

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KEONJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINANT CASE NO. 74 OF 1996

Sri A.K. Nayak, OFS (I),

Divisional Manager,

Keonjhar (P) Division,

At: P.O: Mandua, 

Dist: Keonjhar

                                                                             .     .     .     Complainant

                          Versus

1. Telephone Divisional Engineer,

Department of Telecommunication,

Dhenkanal Telecom, Dist: Dhenkanal

2. Sri R.C. Dash,

Accounts Officer (TR),

O/O The T.D.E. Dhenkanal,

 Dist: Dhenkanal-759001

3. Sri G.C. Mohanty,

Sub-Divisional Engineer (Tel),

At/P.O/Dist: Keonjhar

 4. Sri R.K. Naik,

Jr. Engineer (Tel),

O/O The Sub-Divisional Engineer,

Keonjhar

                                                                            .     .     .     Opp. Parties

Present: Sri B. Acharya, President

                Dr. K.K. Dwibedi, Member

                                   And

                Miss P. Parija, Member (W)

                For Complainant: Nemo

                For OPs: Sri S.N. Mahanta (Govt. Pleader)

______________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing: 05.05.1997                                                          Date of Judgment: 27.05.1997

Sri B. Acharya, President: The brief facts of this case is that the complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No.2377 under Dhenkanal Telecom District. There was excess metering during the period 26.11.94 to 25.11.95 and for which there was excess billing for the period. The complainant approached the OPs number of times for correction of the bills for the period and rectified as per the last four by-monthly average. He also prayed the OPs to adjust the excess payment towards subsequent un-paid bills. The complainant had no STD facility from the beginning of installation for which he had not applied for. He made large number of correspondences with the OPs to redress his grievances which gave no effect. So in the long run being harassed he filed this case on 31.7.96. In order to substantiate his case he has filed the relevant documents of his installation and regular payment up till allegation is made which are marked as Ext.1 to 21.

2. On receipt of the notice from this Court after taking two to three adjournments the OPs filed their written version on 4.3.97. In their version they have admitted the subscribership of the complainant of the telephone No.KJR-2377 but pleaded that they had extended the STD facility automatically without the request of the complainant as it was being made available to all the telephone subscribers under Keonjhar exchange without any exception with effect from 19.2.89 including telephone No.KJR-2377. To this neither they could show any prove nor they could prove that the complainant had requested to grant him the STD facility. So in absence of any sort of proof we are not willing to accept the contention made by the OPs. When the complainant enquired about the excess billing he came to know from Sri R.K. Naik, Junior Engineer OP No.4 after 25.10.95 in his letter No.1833, dt.26.10.95 which is marked as Ext.19. He had requested the OPs to show if anybody from the complainants side had requested to extend the STD facility and from which date, with a request to disconnect the STD facility with information to the complainant, regarding the date of disconnection of STD facility, to which the OPs failed. Rather they completely disconnected the telephone of the complainant with effect from 7.4.96. This fact became very clear to us when we scrutinized both the complaint petition as well as written version. The OPs have clearly mentioned in their paragraph 4 of the written version that they discontinued the STD facility after 9.11.95 on request of the subscriber, the complainant dt.26.10.95 but could not show where he had requested to grant him STD facility at the time of installation.

3. So in these circumstances we are not prepared to accept the advance plea taken by the OPs. On verification of an application form i.e. a petition for installation of a telephone there is provision to give the specific option if STD facility is required. If somebody requires, he will specifically claim for it. It does not require that he will bluntly refuse for the facility. We do not think it reasonable that that the STD facility will be extended to any applicant unless and until affirmatively claimed for as STD facility is always subject to excess payment. Automatic offering seems to be quite unreasonable.

4. The citations already shown by the counsel of the OPs for excess billing that is 1995 (2) CPR- 299, 1990 (2) CPR- 94, 1993 (3) CPR- 383 and 1991 (11) CPR- 421 are not applicable and have not any bearing in the present case as these are only applicable to the party having STD facility only. Rather in the first appeal No.97 of 1990 decided on 8.8.1991 between Divisional Manager, Telephone, Lucknow Appeallant vs. M/s. Madhu Enterprises, Lucknow respondent Hon’ble V. Balkrishna Eradi, President along two members while listening their lordships held that it is the responsibility of telecommunication department to ensure that the metering equipment is efficient and there is no incorrect metering regarding the calls 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. So under the circumstances it is not good to completely disconnect the telephone line on the request of disconnecting the STD facility which was automatically extended unasked for.

5. In these peculiar circumstances we allow the petition without costs with a direction to the OPs to restore the telephone connection within 30 days of pronouncement of this order subject to receipt of the appropriate and proper charges as before from the complainant after ensuring the efficiency of their metering equipment failing which they are to pay Rs.10.00 per each day of delay till the date of installation since the complainant being a commercial organization is suffering a lot due to disconnection of the telephone bearing No.KJR-2377.

     Order pronounced in the open Forum today i.e. 27^th day of May, 1997 under my hand and seal of the forum.

 

     Dr. K.K.  Dwibedi                                          Miss P. Parija                                             Sri B. Acharya

            Member                                                      Member                                                     President 

 

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me.

                                                                                            Sri B. Acharya

                                                                                               President      

 

             BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK

CONSUMER DISPUTE APPEAL NO.480/1997

In the matter of   :

                                    An appeal against the order dt.27.5.1997 passed by the District

                                    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar  in Consumer              

                                    Dispute Case No.74/1996, copy of which was received in the office  

                                    of the S.D.O. (T), Keonjhar on 31.5.1997.

                                                                AND

In the matter of   :

                                   1. Telephone Divisional Engineer,

                                        Department of Telecommunication,

                                        Dhenkanal Telecom, Dist: Dhenkanal

                                    2. Sri R.C. Dash,

                                        Accounts Officer (TR),

                                        Office of the T.D.E. Dhenkanal,

                                        Dist: Dhenkanal

                                   3. Sri G.C. Mohanty,

                                       Sub-Divisional Engineer (Tel),

                                      At/P.O/Dist: Keonjhar

                                   4. Sri R.K. Naik,

                                       Jr. Engineer (Tel),

                                       Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer,

                                       Keonjhar, At/P.O/Dist: Keonjhar

                                                                                        .     .     .    Appellants

                                                                                                        (Opp. Parties in the Forum below)

                                                                -Versus-

                                      Sri A.K. Nayak, OFS (I),

                                      Divisional Manager,

                                      Keonjhar (P) Division,

                                      At: P.O: Mandua, 

                                      Dist: Keonjhar

                                                                                             .     .     .    Respondent

                                                                                                            (Complainant in Forum below)

                                                                                                              The appellants above named

 

C.D. APPEAL NO.480 OF 1997

Order Dated 18.8.2006    : We have heard Shri Mohapatra for the appellants.

2. The respondent filed the complaint alleging excess metering of his telephone during the period commencing from 26.11.1994 to 25.11.1995. Annexure-A filed by the appellants in the District Forum contains the details of the bills starting from 11.2.1993 to 11.12.1996. As stated by Shri Mohapatra, the respondent paid the bill dated 11.6.1995 amounting to Rs.5,477/-. The disputed bills were dated 11.08.1995 and 11.10.1996 for Rs.6,649/- and Rs.5,829/- respectively. Having regard to the calls made by the respondent as mentioned in Annexure-A, we are inclined to hold that since the respondent had paid rupees 5,477/- in respect of bill dated 11.6.1995, the bills dated 11.08.1995 and 11.10.1996 each should be revised to Rs.5,400/-. We order accordingly.

3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above modification and direction. 

           Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/- 

                                                                                                                                                                                   (Justice R.K. Patra)                                      

                                                                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-    

                                                                                                                                                                                  (Sri Subash Mahtab)

                                                                                                                                                                                          MEMBER