Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Bombay    ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s West Coast Industries & Anr.                 ... Respondents

   This is an appeal against the order dated 26th May, 1992 passed in Complaint No. 118/91 by the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay. The said complaint was filed by the present Respondents against the present Appellant. According to the allegations in the complaint, Respondent No. 1 herein field an application for installation of a Fax Machine at their premises in or about May, 1988 on telephone No.341153. The said machine was approved w.e.f. 10th May, 1988. The last bill in respect of telephone No.341153 for the period 1st September, 1989 to 1st November, 1989 was received by Respondent No.1 and it was for Rs.28,986. From 23rd October, 1989, the number of said telephone was changed to 8550965. It was the case of the complainant that from 10th May, 1988 till 23rd October, 1989 there was no abnormal rise in the bill. however, the first bill in respect of telephone No. 8550965 dated 4th March, 1989 for the period from 23rd December, 1989 (the date change in number) to 18th December, 1989 (i.e. for 57 days) was received by the Complainant and it was for an amount of Rs.94,994/-. On receipt of the said bill Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with the Appellant on 9th March, 1990 pointing out the excessiveness of the bill in question as compared to the bills of preceding six months. The Complainant received another bill dated 15th March, 1990 for the period from 118th De ember, 1989 to 15th February, 1990 and it was for Rs.1,32, 280. The Respondent No.1 again lodged a complaint with the Appellant making reference to the first complaint made on 9th March, 1990 and requested the Appellant to inquire into the matter. in response to these letters the Appellant provisionally split up the first bill to Rs.28,650/- keeping the balance of Rs.66,444/-in abeyance pending the investigation by the Divisional Engineer. The Respondent No.1 paid the said provisional bill. Respondent No.1 received the third bill dated16th May,1990 for the billing period 15th February, 1990 to 31st March, 1990 and it was of Rs.83,454/-. For the satisfaction of the Appellant-Department, the Complainant Respondent No.1 sent to the Appellant two paralled records of the Fax Machine and telex machine for the purpose of comparison. The case of the Complainant is that without making proper investigation the Appellant disconnected the Fax Machine on 15th October, 1990.

      It was the further contention of the Complainant that no proper investigations had been made upon his complaint and he was informed by a cyclostyled letter that the Divisional Engineer had confirmed the meter reading as indicated in the bill dated 5th March, 1990 and therefoire the amount kept in abeyance did not need any revision. Such a stereotyped letter did not furnish any convincing reasons for the spurt in the bill immediately from the date of the change in the number of telephone. There was no corresponding increase in the telex number installed at the premises nor in respect of other telephones at the business premises as well as residential premises of the partners of the Complainant Firm. The Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for injunction in which and interim injuction was first granted but letter on it was vacted. Thereafter the complaint was filed.

      The opposite party in the complaint i.e. the  present Appellant merely denied the fact that there was any excess billing. No counter affidavit was filed by the opposite party denying the allegations of the complainants.

      (It may be mentioned here that Complainant No.2 who is the Respondent No.2 herein is Bombay Telephones User Association).

      The State Commission throughly considered the allegations of the Complainant and came to the conclusion that there has been no proper investigation of the complaints filed by the Complainants. Accordingly it quashed the three bills which were for Rs.94,994/-, Rs.1,32,480/-, and Rs. 83,454/- and directed the Appellant to prepare fresh bills after due investigation in place of aforesaid three bills in consultation with the Complainant. It was further ordered that the Opposite Party i.e. Appellant shall pay to the complainant interest @ 18 % per annum on the payment of split bill of Rs.28,250/- and also granted Rs.5,000/- as token compensation to the Complainant for the deficiency in the service. Feeling aggrieved the Opposite Party has come before this Commission by way of this appeal.

      We have heard the learned counsel for the party and have gone through the records of the case have come to the opinion that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The first thing that stares in the face is that Respondent No.1 has started receiving bills in respect of the telephone having Fax Machine for huge amounts only after the number of the telephone having Fax machine was changed i.e. 23rd October, 1989. Prior to that date he had no complaint about that telephone. In reply to some of the representations of the Respondent No.1 herein the Appellant herein sent stereotype cyclostyled letters which do not at all show whether the contention of the Respondent No.1 made in complaints had been considered. By merely sending a stereotyped reply informing that nbecessary investigations have been completed and the meter and associated equipments have been checked and found to be functioning quiite normally there cannot be said to be a proper redressal of such complaints. This is especially when there is a collosal difference between the earlier bills and the bills complained of Earlier the bill of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the Fax machine ranged between Rs.28,000/- and Rs.37,000/-. The Respondent No.1 has also sent to the Department corresponding bills for his telex and other telephones. If there was any increase in the business the increase would have been relfected not only in the calls metered on the telephone having fax machine but also in respect of other telephones as well as the telex bills.

      The complainant has written a detailed letter dated 10th November, 1990 to the Appellant pointing out certain discrepancies in the various bills. Upto this time, according to the complainant, he has not received any reply of that letter. It was duty of the Department to go into individual allegations thoroughly and if necessary to call the user of the telephone for personal hearing. This does not appear to have been done before disconnecting the telephone in question.

      At page 85 of the paper book is the bill dated 21st November, 1989 in respect of the old telephone No.341153. In that bill the meter readings for the period 8.9.89 to 1.11.89 have been given. At page 83 of the paper book is the first bill dated 4th March, 1989 which was received by Respondent No.1 for the period after the telephone was changd to 8550965. Computer typed meter reading shows that the previous meter reading of that number on 8th February, 1989 was 639 while on 18th December, 1989 the meter was 78525. The metered calls were calculated as 77686. That typed portion has been struck off and in handwriting the meter reading on 23rd October, 1989 as 78525 and the total metered calls have been calculated at 77387. After deducting the free calls, the chargeable calls were recorded as 77131. These two bills show that from 23rd October, 1989 to 1st November, 1989 both the telephone numbers i.e. 341153 and 8550965 were used by Respondent No.1. At least this is not possible. At page 43 of the paper book there is a proforma for the disputed period from 23rd October, 1989 to 18th December, 1989 in respect of fortnightly breakup of Telephone No.8550965. On 18th October, 1989 meter reading is shown as 14508. On 3rd November 1989 the meter has shown the same reading. On 18th November, 1989 the meter reading is shown as 40700. On 3rd December the meter reading has shown as 57409 and on 18th December the meter reading shown is 78525. Thus last reading is the same as given in the bill dated 4th March 1990. however according to the proforma the total number of calls is given as 74017.

      In the above circumstances the Department was required to made a thorough investigation that why there was a spurt in the meter calls just after the number of telephone having fax machine was changed we need not dilate much upon this as this order is of confirmation of the State Commission's order on merits. The State Commission has discussed in detail the superficial investigations made by the Nigam.

      However, we are of the opinion that till the investigations are completed the complainant is not entitled to any damages or to any interest on the amount deposited by him. Accordingly we set aside that Portion of the order of the State Commission bu which it has awarded to the complainant compensation and interest on the amount deposited with the Opposit Party. The remaining portion of the order is maintained. With the above modification in the said order we dismiss the present appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.