‘User was not over-billed’

With the use of modern methods of detection, it is no longer feasible for a consumer to say he has been over-billed. This is what a consumer found in the sub-divisional officer and others vs Jagdish Chander Sharma in the Union Territory of Chandigarh consumer disputes redressal commission recently.

Sharma received two bills of Rs16,131 and Rs48,438 in two successive months that he claimed were much higher than his usual bills of about Rs400. He asked the telephone department to reduce them to the monthly average over the last six months.

The department wrote to him saying this was not possible.
Sharma went to the consumer forum alleging that either the telephone department’s meter was faulty or some department employees had misused the line.

He demanded that he be charged on the basis of average monthly billing and be reimbursed Rs50,000 for harassment. The district forum ordered the department to charge him on average basis and pay him Rs1,000 as compensation.

The department took the matter to the state commission. They contended that a team had investigated the case and found that the subscriber had used STD and ISD services in the contentious bill period. The department produced a list of calls made by the client in the two months.

It proved that Sharma was a businessman and his son had made several calls that extended for hours.

The commission accepted the department’s contention. It added that the practice of charging on average basis was to be used only in exceptional cases where injustice seemed to have been done. The order of the district forum was set aside and the complaint dismissed as false.