1. THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Palakkad in O.P. No. 383/ 1997. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. SHORTLY stated the allegations in the complaint are as follows. The complainant is a consumer under the Telecom Department and he is having a telephone connection to his house bearing No. 462199 under Alathur Exchange. The complainant alleged that the bill for the month of March dated 26.3.1997 issued for Rs. 2,101/- is highly inflated and does not represent the actual calls originated from his telephone. He also alleged the telephone bills for the 1 0 preceding months and subsequent three months are as shown below: 14.7.1995 Rs. 285 /- 4.9.1995 Rs. 235/- 28.11.1995 Rs. 319/- 31.1.1996 Rs. 333/- 26.3.1996 Rs. 241/- 31.5.1996 Rs. 196/- 26.7.1996 Rs. 116/- 26.9.1996 Rs. 79/- 29.11.1996 Rs. 115/- 21.1.1997 Rs. 115/- Disputed bill 26.3.1997 Rs. 2101/- 11.5.1997 Rs. 283/- 26.7.1997 Rs. 247/-
In the circumstances the complainant alleged that the bill dated 26.3.1997 is illegal. He filed a complaint before the opposite party but the opposite party did not do anything. It is in the circumstances the complaint was filed.
Opposite party filed a version stating that on receipt of the complaint from the consumer on 9.4.1997 they made investigation. On investigation they could not find any fault in the equipment or in the meter and therefore the sudden spurt was only due to excessive number of calls made from the telephone in that particular month.
3. THE District Forum held that a sudden change of habit cannot happen in one particular month and it may be due to some fault in the meter of the equipment. THE District Forum directed the opposite party to produce the computer print out on calls made from the telephone for the month of March, 1997. But the Department did not produce the documents. In the circumstances the District Forum passed an order after taking average charges of ten bills inclusive of disputed bills and arrived at the figure Rs. 393 /- and ordered to adjust the balance in the future bills of the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.
4. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant produced a letter from the Department of Telecommunication, Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Palakkad which stated that Alanalloor exchange is of type 512 ILT model. There was no provision to extract detailed billing from this type of exchange at the time of issue of the disputed bill. An affidavit also has been filed by the Counsel on the basis of this statement that there is no provision to extract detailed billing at the time of issuance of disputed bill.
The right of information is fundamental and the subscriber has a right to know the basis on which the bills were prepared. In a place where there is facility to furnish print out it is necessary to furnish the same in a case where the subscriber complains of inflated bill and wants to know the basis on which the bill was prepared. Before the District Forum the opposite party has not raised a contention that there is no facility in the Exchange to furnish print out during the relevant period. Admittedly there is a spurt. The complainant has produced all the ten bills inclusive of disputed bill and we find except in the disputed bill the bill amount is ranging from Rs. 79/- to Rs. 333/-. In this connection we may refer to our decision in Appeal 928/1995 where we have highlighted the necessity of complying with the guidelines and instructions issued by the Telecom Department in cases where such spurt jumping is noticed. The instructions and guidelines issued by Telecom Department and Government of India have to be observed in cases where sudden spurt is noticed but in the instant case those instructions are not followed. As a matter of fact it is only when a complaint was filed by the complainant they observed the meter reading equipment. Recently the National Commission had occasion to consider cases of this nature in Telecom District Manager, Mehasana & Another v. Patel Sliankerlal Kevalram, II (1996) CPJ 99 (NC). Tine following observation of the National Commission is veryrelevant :
"The State Commission have referred to the guidelines issued by the Telecommunication Department for disposal of excess meter complaints, which also deal with advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint. The action to be taken includes, (a) meter reading to be taken every fortnight, (b) identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt, and (c) in case of such sudden spurt 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. In the present case, there was admittedly a spurt in calls in the said period. The billing period is for two months and thus consists of four fortnights. The question which remains unanswered by the revision petitioners-Department is the reason why advance action was not taken by them, specially when according to them, the Guidelines are meant to gain the confidence of the subscribers. It may be mentioned that the metering equipment remains under the possession and control of the Department and not under the control of the subscriber. In cases of dispute about the correctness of the metering equipment, therefore, the petitioner-Department should produce objective basis for proving that the metering equipment was not defective. In the light of this and the fact that the availability of STD on the said phone had not resulted in inflated calls for the periods prior to and subsequent to the period relating to the disputed bill, it becomes incumbent on the part of the petitioner-Department to substantiate and establish with evidence that the metering equipment was in fact not defective. For this purpose, we set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum for de novo adjudication by affording a further opportunity to both parties to adduce any additional evidence which they may desire to place before the Forum."
In that case the National Commission remanded the matter but in die minority judgment after upholding the principle laid down by the majority justice G. Yadav stated that the proper order in such cases would be to set aside the order and that the department is asked to prepare a fresh bill on the higher bill received during the nearest disputed bill and add 10% to the bill and the complainant asked to pay that amount. We feel if calculation is made on the basis suggested in the minority judgment, the amount to be paid by the complainant would be less than what is ordered by the District Forum. In the circumstances we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
