The GM, BSNL & Anr.                              ---- Petitioner 
                           Vs.
P.D.Khanduri                                           ---- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Kapoor, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Dated: 29-11-2004 

PER MR. B.K.TAIMNI, MEMBER:

     Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service.

     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had a telephone connection from the petitioner. According to the complainant his average bills were around Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per month but sudden spurt was noticed and he was given a bill for Rs. 72,877/- dated 11.8.2000 because of excessive billing. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to settle the bill at Rs. 10,000/- and refund excessive amount received from the petitioner. On an appeal filed before the State Commission by the petitioner was dismissed, hence this Revision Petition.

     We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Plea taken before us is two fold. Firstly, respondents exchange is covered by the Dynamic Locking STD facility and secondly the calls made were to his relations or relatives. On our specific query Learned Counsel for petitioner was unable to satisfy us about the revocation of the instructions relating to excessive billing. The instructions on the subject is reproduced :

"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 be taken every fortnight.

b) Identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly reading show a sudden spurt and

c) In case of such sudden spurts being noticed placing the telephone line on observations and deputing responsible staff to the subscribers 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 showing a sudden spurt should be put on observations. For this purpose immediate steps must be taken to provide suitable observation equipment in all exchanges having STD facilities, so that once a spurt is noticed, the line is actually put on observation.

5.6 In case of sudden spurt being noticed a suitable office should be deputed to inspect the installation as well as to ensure that there was no special occasion which could have given rise to a genuine spurt.

---------

6.7 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 bimonthly 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 calls billed in the proceeding six-monthly period plus 10% thereof and should be issued with a clear statement that this is 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."

     It is admitted position that the instructions on sudden spurt of bills have not been revoked in view of the Dynamic Locking Facility available/Dynamic Exchanges was engrossed in this case. According to us if there are instructions on subject issued by the Department themselves then they need to be followed which admittedly was not followed by the petitioner which is a clear case of deficiency in service. There is concurrent finding of the fact by both the lower forums about the calls made and they have been gone extensively into other pleas taken by the petitioner and have returned the finding of deficiency on the part of petitioner. In view of the fact that there was a sudden spurt in the calls made and this was not noticed or brought to the notice of the respondent/complainant, thus deficiency in service is obvious. In view of the concurrent finding written by both the lower forums, we see no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission to call for our interference in exercise of powers conferred under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act. We see no merit in this Revision Petition, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.