ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. 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. 9 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 u 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 bimonthly 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 bimonthly 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 bimonthly 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 Department comes to the conclusion that the original bill is justified, the subscriber will have to pay the full bill or as may be determined by the competent authority.
8. The telephone department has issued these detailed user friendly guidelines but unfortunately in this case none of the above guidelines have been followed by the local office of the telephone department forcing the consumer/customer to knock at the doors of the District Forum. The department went one step further by disconnecting the telephone, even though a case was pending before the District Forum which is clearly a deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission by confirming the order of the District Forum.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.