- (1.) -The Commission accepted the Miscellaneous Petition and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. There was no need to grant ex-parte stay as the appeal was taken up for disposal at the hearing.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case in appeal are that the telephone of the Respondent before us was disconnected between 1st and 2. 08. 1988 for non-payment of two telephone bills, one dated the 1. 11. 1987 and the second dated the 1st of May, 1988. After the expiry of three months, the telephone department allotted the disconnected telephone to another subscriber. The telephone was) restored to the appellant on 13. 01. 1989 on payment of above mentioned bills and reconnection and other charges. The Respondent herein had complained before the State Commission that the telephone services were deficient "in the quality, nature and manner of performance" that she had received inflated bills first dated 1st of September, 1986 and also subsequently. But the appellant herein, without proper examination, refused to grant her any relief; and that she received a bill for local telephone calls even after the telephone had been disconnected. The appellant maintained that the disconnection of telephone was on account of default in payment of the bills and that meter had been checked and found to be correct and, therefore, the bills were not inflated and no relief could be granted to the Respondent herein and the Complainant before the State Commission The State Commission after elaborate examination held that the Respondent Complainant did not have a genuine grievance about the disconnection of the telephone as the disconnection was because of non-payment of the bills of November, 1987 a. 05. 1988. There was no allegation that these bills had been inflated. The State Commission, however, analysed the meter readings for the telephone number concerned for the period from 1985 to July,1988 and found that the meter reading for the fortnight ending 1. 08. 1986 was 4674 whereas the maximum reading in any other fortnight did not exceed 2129 (fortnight ending 1. 09. 1987,. Further, the meter had also recorded substantial number (938) of calls from the period from 1st of August to 31st December 1988, the number of calls metered from 15th November to 30. 11. 1988 was as high 465 and all this when the telephone was supposed to have been disconnected. In fact, a bill for Rs. 245 was sent to the Respondent for the past disconnection period, though the same was scored out. These facts are indicative of the fact that the telephone system and organisation was not functioning properly and that the metering equipment and its testing were not dependable. The State Commission while finding that the disconnection of the telephone was not unjustified held that "the prolonged correspondence in respect of the inflated bill dated 1. 09. 1986, the subsequent disconnection, and more specifically the allotment of the telephone number to another subscriber in December 1988, must have caused mental agony, and harassment to the Complainant and would have also adversely affected her professional practice" and thereby caused loss in the professional practice and mental agony. On these grounds, the Commission, therefore, directed that the excess amount recovered from the Complainant (Respondent here) on account of the inflated bill of 1-9-1986 should be refunded or adjusted against subsequent bills and that she be given a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- for the loss in professional practice and a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental injury caused to the Complainant (Respondent here) because of the acts of the omissions and commissions of the appellant. This Commission, after perusing the record and hearing the parties has come to the following finding: - (i) it has been established that the bill of 1-9-1986 was inflated and the department now is ready to refund or adjust the amount; (ii) the department has no explanation for the fact that the meter showed readings of calls after the telephone had been disconnected and remained disconnected. It, undoubtedly, indicates that the metering of the telephone calls and their check is undependable and that there is no adequate system to protect the interests of the subscribers against the inflated bills; and (iii) the department has failed to deal with the inflated bills, when disputed by the subscriber, in accordance with its own procedures and which seek to save these subscribers against having have to pay immediately to excses amounts under the threat of disconnection.
(3.) IT was urged by the appellant before this Commission that the amounts of compensation granted have not been substantiated by any evidence whatever and that the Respondent's husband had a telephone in his own name which was used by the Respondent during the period of disconnection and, hence, really no loss or damage was caused to the Respondent. On this point, the State Commission, itself had observed that ". . . no specific basis has been given by the Complainant to calculate the loss in professional practice or the value of the loss on account of mental agony, etc. . . " Nevertheless, it awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the loss in professional practice and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental injury for the acts of omissions and commissions of the appellant. On the facts established, there is no doubt that the functioning of the telephone department is far from satisfactory, the services rendered to the subscribers are deficient and the manner in which it deals with their complaints leaves much to be desired. The subscriber is made to suffer inconvenience, harassment and frustration in pursuing the matters with the telephone department. It may not always be possible for the subscriber to maintain detailed record of loss of professional practice. ;