Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Tejpal Singh against opposite parties i.e. BSNL through its General Manager Telecommunication Jalandhar and other functionaries for quashing of telephone bills dated 5/4/06 and 8/7/06 being illegal, null and void and for claiming monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 2. In nutshell the facts of the complaint are that complainant is subscriber of telephone No.279030 having no STD facility and the telephone bills is about Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- approximately. It is further alleged that suddenly telephone bill dated 5/12/2005 exceeds and a complaint was lodged with the telephone exchange at village Lakhan Kalan and also at Kapurthala and again bill dated 5/12/2006 exceeds to Rs.8285/- which is excessive. He approached opposite parties and got stopped the outgoing of the telephone as there was number which he never dialed. He also filed a complaint to the Accounts Officer, BSNL Kapurthala on 23/2/2006 and again a bill of Rs.665/- was issued on 5/4/06. However, an assurance was given by opposite parties NO.3 and 4 that a proper inquiry was made and bill was adjusted as the bill was too excessive. His complaint remained pending as the telephone generally remained out of order. It is further alleged that opposite party department failed to send proper list of the calls to him and the inquiry remained pending the BSNL opposite party. No observation equipment was used to detect the wrong metering or the wrong calls made on his telephone. It is further averred that due to non payment of the bills of the disputed periodm his telephone connection barred and ddisconnected and again telephone authorities sent notice dated 10/1/2007 for payment of bill of Rs. 8049/- after adjusting the other amounts by the department which is quite illegal on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service by not supplying the print out of calls especially when there was abnormal upward trend in the billing circle inspite of repeated requests for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations of the complainant. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 7b of Indian Telegraph act. On merits this fact is admitted that telephone279030 was provided to the complainant. However, opposite party has defended legality and validity of telephone bill dated 5/12/05 and bill dated 5/2/2006 in the sum of Rs.8285/- and also bill dated 5/4/06 in the sum of Rs.665/- are correct according to actual use of telephone by the complainant and his family members. The telephone of the complainant always remained in working order and was never out of order. It is denied that complaint of the complainant remained pending for any unusual period. The complainant got converted plan of his telephone to Sulabh plan on 20/2/06.. It is further pleaded that after receipt of complaint dated 23/2/2006, thorough investigation was made as per departmental norms. After installation of computerized digital exchange, there is absolutely no scope of any misuse of telephone from telephone exchange. The telephone connections are connected upto distribution point through underground cable and from that area there is no possibility of any misuse. . The distribution point from where the telephone of the complainant is connected was found locked and the wires from the said distribution point upto window of the complainant was found intact and there was no possibility of misuse.. Neither there wa any possibility of spurt nor was any such spurt observed regarding the telephone of the complainant or any other telephones of the exchange. from where the telephone of the complainant is connected. . Even no other subscriber has made any complaint in this respect. Exchange report which revealed no fault, fortnighly meter reading and fault card which showed no fault, were also taken into consideration. Detail of calls regarding the period in dispute and observation on detail of calls of the subsequent period revealed that bill in question is according to actual use of telephone by the complainant and his family members.. The complainant was also sent detail of calls alongwith letter dated 16/3/2006. Complainant has admitted in his letter dated 23/2/2006 regarding knowledge of detail of calls. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Tej Pal Singh has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1,documents Ex.C2 to C6 and affidavit Ex.C7.<br /> <br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits Ex.R1 to R3 and documents Ex,.R4 to R8.<br /> <br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that there was abnormal upward trend in the billing circle resulting into impunged bill dated 5/2/2006 for Rs.8285/- and the possibility of connivance of unscrupulous element for misuse of his telephone cannot be ruled out. He further urged that there is gross violation of instructions regarding excessive billing . On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that there is no violation of instructions regarding excessive billing on the part of opposite parties and defended legality and genuineness of the bills in question as per actual user by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find a good deal of merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced thereon, these broad facts are not disputed that complainant has agitated about excess and arbitrary bill dated 5/2/2006 for Rs.8285/- on much higher footing as compared to the earlier bills and further failure on the part of opposite parties to redress his grievance by not conducting thorough investigation on his complaint as per its own instructions. The perusal of the record indicates that complainant filed complaint dated 23/2/2006 Ex.C2 to the opposite parties for conducting thorough inquiry about detail of telephone numbers which he never dialed nor related to him. This was followed by another complaint to the department Ex.C3 and that he approached authorities of BSNL to stop outgoing facility on telephone No.297030. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has also filed affidavit of Harwinder Kumar SDO Ex.R1, affidavit of P.C. sharma JAO Ex.R2, and affidavit of Rajiv Kumar Lineman Ex.R3 and also record Ex.R4 from 1/12/2005 to 31/1/06 and investigation and fortnighly meter reading Ex.R7 and R8 about disputed period from 1/12/2005 to 31/1/2006 and the reply Ex.R6 dated 16/3/2006 with the observation that bill issued by them is correct.. The print out of calls were also received by the complainant and as such justified the impunged bill. Evidently we find that impunged bill dated 5/2/2006 for Rs.8285/- is excessive as compared to the earlier bill and also later bill. There is specific allegation of the complainant in the complaintdated 23/2/2006 that numbers referred to in the billing record were not related to him nor he nor he ever dialed and further alleged that exchange officials may be contacted because the number already misused by them with connivance of certain unscrupulous element. No doubt, counsel for the opposite party has contended that exchange is made of C-dot exchange which is automatic and there cannot be any fault in the modern equipment and its maintenance has to be shown and the instructions regarding excessive billing in letter NO. 459/85TR dated 9/4/86 which mandates as per rule 5.2 and also rule 6.4 (a,b,c clauses) cannot be brushed aside :<br /> <br /> a) that once complaint is received from the subscriber<br /> <br /> very prompt action must be taken to <br /> <br /> investigate the same. For this purpose prescribed<br /> <br /> officer must call for foolowing details from the <br /> <br /> officer incharge of the Exchange :<br /> <br /> a) record of fortnighly reading in respect of<br /> <br /> six preceeding bi-monthly period<br /> <br /> b) Extract of fault card for the disputed period<br /> <br /> C) spurt report and action taken on the same and the <br /> <br /> result thereof. This will include (a) observation in the <br /> <br /> Exchange B) any field investigation if carried out<br /> <br /> . As per rule 7.4 to give credibility to investigate in the department individual typed reply should go to the subscriber giving very briefly investigation carried out and the result thereof for the final decision. However, from the documents ExR7 and R8, routine observations about not showing any excess metering or spurt to brush aside the grievance of the subscriber about the connivance of some unscrupulous element in misusing the telephone number having no connectin with him cannot be said to have been meticulously complied. Reference is also made to case 1 (2007) CPJ 12 (NC) Telephones ( General Manager ) Chandigarh vs. Director Regional Computer centre wherein it has been categorically laid down that it was incumbent upon the Telephone Department to inform the user if there was sudden spurt in number of calls being made as a principle of natural justice and especially when the telephone alleged to have been used by unscrupulous element in connivance with th some of the em0ployees of the telephone department. No doubt counsel for the opposite party has referred to case law about exces billing but these are distinguishable with the present complaint when the opposite party deviated from its own instructions regarding non communication to the consumer on account of abnormal excess billing and number of calls alleged to be made by some unscrupulous element..<br /> <br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash the impunged bill dated 5/2/2006 of Rs/8285/- with further direction to send the bills on average basis of the last six months prior to 5/2/2006. We further direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service with cost of litigation of Rs.500/-. The above directions be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> <br /> 29.1.2008 Member President.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />