Bombay High Court
Alvaro De Noronha Ferreira vs General Manager, Telecom Department Of ... on 7 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000BOM278, 2000(2)BOMCR736, 2000(2)MHLJ515, AIR 2000 BOMBAY 278, (2000) 2 CIVILCOURTC 547, (2000) 2 MAH LJ 515, (2000) 4 CIVLJ 200, (2000) 1 ALLMR 523 (BOM), (2000) 2 BOM CR 736
Author: R.K. Batta
Bench: R.K. Batta, R.M.S. Khandeparkar
ORDER R.K. Batta, J.
1. The petitioner had sent a letter petition complaining of harassment, mental torture and anguish, which he had to suffer on account of casual and careless approach of the employees of the Telephone Department, Panaji. The telephone of the petitioner was dead from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996, but inspite of that he received Bill dated 1st September, 1996, in which 11 S.T.D. calls were shown to have been made from the said dead telephone between 22nd June, 1996 to 9th July, 1996-the total calls being 234. On 28th July, 1996, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the General Manager of Telecom, Goa, requesting for adjustment of rental corresponding to 46 days when the telephone was dead. In Bill dated 1st September, 1996, no adjustment of rental was made and, instead, 11 S.T.D. calls totalling 234 units were shown to have been made from the said telephone during the period the telephone was dead. From then onwards, the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for more than three years by the Telephone Department. The petitioner not only went to the Telephone Department on 21 different occasions, but had to draft applications/letters, had to wait for officers of the Department in the corridors, or in offices and had to spend money on typing, xeroxing, postage, etc. We shall deal with the total apathy of the Telephone Department towards a consumer, while dealing in detail as to what had transpired in this matter during the said period of more than three years. The petitioner seeks reimbursement of expenses incurred by him as well as compensation amounting to Rs. 4,800/- in all, as well as costs.
2. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Sonak, who was appointed to assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner, as well as learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri Sameer Bandodkar.
3. Learned Advocate Shri Sonak took us through the records as well as affidavits filed by the department and pointed out that the manner in which the petitioner has been treated by the Department calls for severe action against the concerned employees of the Department who have not only shown total lack of concern for the consumer, but are responsible for the harassment caused to the petitioner. He also urged that besides the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the petitioner, compensation and exemplary costs be awarded in the matter. In support of his submissions he has relied upon Birendra Kumar Bhuwalka v. Union of India & others, ; Naresh Chandra Roy v. Union of India & others, ; M/s. Rao & Co., Panaji v. The Accounts Officer, D.E.T. Office, Panaji, & others, and The Peoples Union For Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L.) v. Union of India & another, .
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, fairly admitted that there has been considerable delay in settling the grievance of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner had to approach the Department time and again; that the matter relating to the S.T.D. calls had to be referred to the Excess Billing Committee, which took time and ultimately it was decided that the petitioner should not be charged for the said S.T.D. calls; that the rebate of Rs. 80/- on the rentals was granted in view of Circular dated 8th October, 1993, issued by the Department of Telephone under Rule 446 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. On being asked as to whether there was any mechanism to deal with the grievances of the consumers, it was stated by him, after obtaining instructions from the Department, that except for public relations officers, who look into the grievances of the consumers, there is no other cell to look into the grievances, but the complaints relating to excess billing are referred to Excess Billing Committee constituted under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
5. We may, to start with, point out that there is no dispute whatsoever on the question that the telephone of the petitioner was not functioning i.e. dead for 46 days with effect from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996. The petitioner sent a registered letter to the respondent Department claiming adjust-
ment of corresponding rental for 46 days, during which the telephone was dead, but he received Bill dated 1st September, 1996, without any rental rebate and, on the contrary, the telephone Bill reflected 11 S.T.D. calls amounting totally to 234 units as having been made from the said telephone, during the period the telephone was dead. The petitioner went to the Telephone Department, but he was called after a few days. The petitioner accordingly, went on the appointed date when he was called and the Chief Accounts Officer, after verification, confirmed that the telephone was dead from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996 and the Chief Accounts Officer informed him that he should come after few days for availing rebate. The petitioner received the next Bill dated 1st November, 1996, wherein no rebate was granted and the petitioner had to again meet the Chief Accounts Officer. The petitioner was informed by the Chief Accounts Officer that rebate was not granted as the concerned clerk had proceeded on maternity leave, but in the next Bill the necessary rebate would be granted. The next Bill was received by the petitioner on 1st January, 1997, when again no rebate was granted and the petitioner once again met the Chief Accounts Officer, who told him to pay the Bill and visit her after some days as the concerned clerk was absent. The petitioner visited the office of the Chief Accounts Officer on 28th January, 1997 and was assured that adjustment would be given in the next Bill for 1st March, 1997. The petitioner informed the Chief Accounts Officer that he had already visited the Department on a number of occasions and, as such, some assurance in writing be given. Accordingly, the Chief Accounts Officer wrote on the back of Bill dated 1st September, 1996 that rental rebate for the Bill dated 1st September, 1996 will be adjusted in the next Bill, i.e. 1st March, 1997. This Bill with the endorsement of the Chief Accounts Officer is at page 9 of the petition.
6. In the next Bill dated 1st March, 1997, rebate of Rs. 80/- only was given in respect of the rental. In respect of the S.T.D. calls, the Chief Accounts Officer told the petitioner that he should pay the Bill dated 1st March, 1997 and the rebate for the S.T.D. calls would be given in the Bill dated 1st May, 1997. The petitioner asked the Chief Accounts Officer to give assurance in writing regarding the adjustment of S.T.D. calls and the Chief Accounts Officer made an endorsement in writing dated 19th March, 1997 on the S.T.D. Bill which is at page 11 of the petition, to the effect that the calls made during the period when the telephone was out of order, will be adjusted subsequently. Inspite of all this, the petitioner continued to pay the Bills as issued by the Department. In Bill dated 1st May, 1997, again no rebate was given for the S.T.D. calls and the petitioner had to once again contact the Chief Accounts Officer, who scolded the clerk concerned. She took a xerox copy of the Bill and informed the petitioner not to pay the Bill dated 1st May, 1997, until the same was corrected. Accordingly, the petitioner did not pay the said Bill. Thereafter, the petitioner received two more Bills without any rebate. According to the petitioner, he was utterly dejected with the constant visits to the Department which yielded no success and, as such, he paid the said two Bills without any demure. The Telephone Department then threatened disconnection of the telephone of the petitioner unless Bill dated 1st May, 1997, was paid on the same day by 5 p.m. The petitioner rushed to the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, but was informed by her that she was very busy and he was asked to see the Accounts Officer in the adjacent chamber. The Accounts Officer heard him and sent him to another officer sitting in the main hall, where a number of other staff members were sitting. The said officer accepted that no S.T.D. calls could be made during the period the said telephone was dead, yet he claimed that he had no power to pass any order on the claim of rebate without hearing say from the Technical Division. He informed the said officer regarding threatening call of disconnection of the telephone, but the said officer told him that the telephone would not be disconnected and that he need not pay the Bill dated 1st May, 1997, till the same was corrected. Subsequently, the petitioner received communication dated 24th November, 1997, from the Telephone Department, which is at page 12 of the petition. This was a letter written by Accounts Officer (T.R.A.) of the Department of Telecommunications to the D.E.E. 10-B, Telephone Exchange, Altinho, Panaji, asking him to investigate and submit detailed report for correcting the Bill. In this letter there is a reference to the fault report of the telephone in question, which was dead from 12th June, 1996, to 28th July, 1996, but unfortunately the calls were recorded from the above said telephone. After this communication also the petitioner claims that he received two threatening calls for payment of Bill dated 1st May, 1997, failing which the telephone would be disconnected.
7. On 25th November, 1998, the petitioner received communication dated 21st November, 1997, from the Deputy General Manager, (North) Goa Telecom District, which is at page 13 of the petition. By this communication the petitioner was informed that his complaint was looked into and after investigation reports were put up to the Excess Metering Committee, who felt that there was no justification for giving any rebate. It was further stated in the said letter that at E-10-B Exchange at Panaji the meter readings are electronically recorded and the petitioner was advised to use dynamic S.T.D. lock when the telephone was not in use. The petitioner then wrote letter dated 28th November, 1998 to the Department which is at page 14 of the petition, enumerating in detail the harassment caused to him and the negligence of the Department, as a result of which he had to make 16 visits to the Department and besides that had to waste lot of time and energy in writing letters. By communication dated 1st February, 1999, which is at that time on review of the case, facts mentioned in the letter dated 28th November, 1999 and additional reports received from field units, it was decided to give rebate for S.T.D. calls billed during the period of dispute. By communication dated 18th February, 1999, which is at page 18 of the petition, rebate of Rs. 242/- was granted and it was informed that the same would be adjusted in future bills. In Bill dated 1st May, 1999, the amount of Rs. 242/- was adjusted and the petitioner paid the Bill. After this, the petitioner on his own went to the Telephone Department to pay the Bill dated 1st May, 1997, which the Chief Accounts Officer had told him not to pay until the Bill was rectified. When the petitioner presented the Bill for payment, the clerk at the counter demanded delayed charges of Rs. 40/- on the said Bill. The petitioner informed the clerk that he was in no manner responsible for the delay and was not bound to pay the delayed charges. The clerk directed the petitioner to an officer in the main hall of the Department and from there the petitioner was shunted from one table to the other and finally, the petitioner landed in the office of the Director of Finance. The Director of Finance insisted on a written application. The petitioner apprised him of the trauma and mental anguish undergone by him and whether an application was really necessary, but the Director of Finance insisted on a written application. This happened on 10th June, 1999. The petitioner returned home, drafted got typed the application and again went to the office of Director of Finance on 11th June, 1999, but the Director of Finance was not in the chamber. The petitioner handed over the application to a lady who agreed to place the same before the Director. The petitioner again went to the office of the Director of Finance, but the Director was not there. On 16th June, 1999, the petitioner went to meet the Director of Finance who, after keeping him waiting for about 20 minutes, told the petitioner that he had been transferred and he had relinquished the post on 12th June, 1999, itself, but he had passed an order granting the application. The Director of Finance handed over the application alongwith attached papers and told him to take them to the main hall, where it would be processed. The petitioner was again shunted from table to table and ultimately a male clerk flung the papers across the table in his direction and told the petitioner to bring a xerox copy of the application. The petitioner was kept standing for 15 minutes while the papers passed from one table to the other and he found the experience humiliating due to which he left the office. Thereafter he sent the letter petition in question. The petitioner complains of discourteous, contumacious, inefficient and humiliating treatment which the Department had meted to a consumer and he had to approach the Court to highlight the manner in which a public utility service treats its consumers. The petitioner thus made 21 trips to the Telephone Department, spent considerable time on drafting/typing letters, waiting for the officers of the Department in the corridors, or middle of the halls of their offices and had to spend a sizable amount towards trips, typing, xeroxing, postage, etc., besides mental torture and anguish suffered by him due to careless and negligent attitude of the employees of the Department.
8. The Department did not dispute that the telephone was dead for 46 days between 12th June, 1996, to 28th July, 1996. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Department was found to be unsatisfactory and the respondent was directed to file detailed affidavit, including action taken against the persons responsible for issuing the telephone Bill for S.T.D. calls when the telephone was admittedly dead. This direction was given on 13th July, 1999. On 2nd August, 1999, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, on instructions from Shri S.A. Krishna, S.D.E. (Legal), initially stated that the Department did not wish to file affidavit as directed by this Court on 13th July, 1999, but subsequently, Shri Krishna, S.D.E. (Legal) stated that the Department will file an affidavit as directed. In the first affidavit dated 12th July, 1999, filed by Shri S.A. Krishna, S.D.E. (Legal), it was admitted that there was delay in attending to the complaint and the fault could be rectified only after 46 days, that is to say, on 28th July, 1996; that eventhough the Chief Accounts Officer was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to rebate, as result of which he wrote on the bottom of the S.T.D. calls list that the calls made during the period when the telephone was out of order will be adjusted subsequently, yet the Chief Accounts Officer did not have authority to grant such rebate and the file was required to be placed before the Deputy General Manager, which seems to have not been done; latter the file was placed before the Excess Metering Committee; the Chief Accounts Officer might have informed the petitioner not to pay the Bill dated 1st May, 1997, till the dispute was finally settled; the remark of the Chief Accounts Officer below the list of S.T.D. calls was not available before the Excess Metering Committee; that subsequently, on receipt of the letter of the petitioner dated 28th November, 1998, the Excess Metering Committee reviewed its earlier decision not to grant rebate; that the respondent came to know of the incident of throwing of the papers at the petitioner which took place on 12th June, 1999, only on receipt of the copy of the petition in question and that the respondent is contemplating to conduct an indepth enquiry in the said matter.
9. In the affidavit dated 19th July, 1999, of the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Vigilance), it was stated that the fault reported by the petitioner on 12th June, 1996, was a cable fault; that there was every possibility that while doing the joining of cables in order to repair the faults, cable pair in respect of one telephone got accidentally connected to some other telephone and, as such the S.T.D. calls recorded against the said telephone during the period when the telephone of the petitioner was dead could be a consequence of usage of the telephone line of the petitioner by some other subscriber. However, since the petitioner had not locked the S.T.D. facility eventhough dynamic locking facility was available, the respondent decided not to grant rebate to the petitioner. It is further stated in this affidavit that in respect of the incident on 14th June, 1999, regarding the papers being flung at the petitioner by a male clerk, preliminary verification has been made and the co-operation of the petitioner would be solicited for identifying the clerk who had misbehaved with him. It is further stated in this affidavit that the petitioner was asked to assist the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer on 9th July, 1999, but the petitioner did not come forward to co-operate with the respondent. On the question as to whether the Telephone Department personnel use badges indicating their names on their person and on tables on which they sit, it is stated that there are no departmental circulars requiring the staff of the Telephone Department to wear any name plates while on duty.
10. In affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999, by Sub-Divisional Engineer (Le-gal), it is submitted that the respondent is facing difficulty to identify any particular officer responsible for issue of the Bill dated 1st September, 1996 to the petitioner; that the respondent comes to know about any discrepancy in the Bills resulting from any fault reported by the subscriber only when the same is brought to the notice of the Customer Service Centre of the Department and not others that the petitioner had not locked the S.T.D. facility even though dynamic locking facility was available, which facilitated the use of S.T.D. facility by some other persons, and, as such, normally the subscriber is held responsible for mis-use of his telephone. Accordingly, no rebate was granted to the petitioner regarding S.T.D. calls. However, later the Excess Metering Committee headed by the Deputy General Manager granted rebate on benefit of doubt to the petitioner after reviewing the earlier deci-
sion. It is also stated in this affidavit that since considerable time has elapsed in the process, no useful purpose would be served by any enquiry.
11. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 2nd August, 1999, had stated that the communication dated 9th July, 1999, of the respondent requesting him to assist the Department in identifying the persons responsible was received by him through post on 15th July, 1999. The said communication required the petitioner to visit the Telephone Department on 13th July, 1999 at 11.30 a.m., as a result of which he could not obviously appear before the Telephone Department on 13th July, 1999, but he did visit the office of the Telephone Department on 21st July, 1999. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the submission of the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Vigilance) in para 14 of the affidavit that the petitioner did not co-operate with the respondent is incorrect and unfortunate.
12. Further in affidavit dated 5th August, 1999, filed in sur-rejoinder by Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal), it is stated that the letter dated 9th July, 1999 was despatched by ordinary post and believing that the same would be delivered within two or three days, the respondent on the bona fide belief, had presumed that the petitioner was not interested to assist the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer in identifying the officials. It was admitted that the petitioner did remain present in the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer on 21st July, 1999.
13. The whole episode narrated above, is a sad commentary on the working of the Telephone Department. Admittedly, the telephone of the petitioner was dead for 46 days between 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996. This fact was acknowledged by the Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent as early as 19th March, 1997, as can be seen from the endorsement below the list of S.T.D. calls at page 11 of the petition. The said note in categorical terms states that the calls made during the period when the telephone was out of order will be adjusted subsequently. The petitioner has explained and we have already noted in detail above, as to how the petitioner had to repeatedly visit the Telephone Department in this connection. The petitioner continued to receive the telephone Bills without adjustment, but he paid the Bills, except for the Bill dated 1st May, 1997, which the Chief Accounts Officer told him not to pay till the adjustment was made. In the meantime, the petitioner was threatened with disconnection of the telephone and had to approach the Chief Accounts Officer. The petitioner subsequently also received threatening calls for disconnection of telephone and had to again visit the Telephone Department. On 24th November, 1998, the petitioner received communication dated 21st November, 1998, which is at page 13 of the petition, informing him that the complaint into Excess Billing had been looked into and after investigation reports were put up to the Excess Metering Committee, which decided that there was no justification for giving any rebate. In affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999, filed by Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal), it is stated that the petitioner had not locked the S.T.D. facility eventhough the dynamic locking facility was available to the petitioner's telephone, thereby facilitating the use of S.T.D. facility by some other persons and, in such circumstances, normally the subscriber is held responsible for mis-use of his telephone as the dynamic locking facility is made available to him, as a result of which no rebate relating to the S.T.D. calls was granted. Where was the question of mis-use by the subscriber, namely the petitioner, when admittedly the telephone was dead during the period when the S.T.D. calls have been recorded? It is rather baffling and surprising as to where was the necessity to refer the matter to the Excess Billing Committee, specially regarding 11 S.T.D. calls (234 units) made during the period when the telephone was admittedly dead. The communication dated 24th November, 1997, which is at page 12 of the petition, a copy of which was sent to the petitioner, itself states the subject, "S.T.D. calls billed in non-working period of P.J.M. 223226." The said communication reads: -
"With reference to your fault report the telephone No. 223226 was dead from 12-06-96 to 28-07-96. But unfortunately the calls are recorded from the above said telephone. Kindly investigate the case and detailed report may please be forwarded to this office for correcting the Bill."
What is still shocking is that after investigation and in the light of the admitted position that the telephone of the petitioner was dead during the period when the said S.T.D. calls are said to have been made, the Excess Billing Committee came to the conclusion that there was no justification of giving any rebate relating to S.T.D. calls since in E- 10-B Exchange at Panaji, meter readings are electronically recorded. The reference to the Excess Billing Committee was not only required in the instant case, but this further resulted in delay in settlement of the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner had to once again represent vide letter dated 28th November, 1998, which is at page 14 of the petition, wherein, in greater detail he had informed the Department that he already made 17 trips to the Department and had wasted lot of time, money and energy in the process, had to face threats of disconnection and was pushed around from table to table in the office of the respondent's Department for almost 2 1/2 years on account of a trivial matter. It was only on 1st February, 1999 that the Department had, on review of the matter, decided to give rebate of S.T.D. calls.
14. In the affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999, filed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal), it is stated that the said rebate was granted on "benefit of doubt" to the petitioner. Where is the question of "benefit of doubt", when the S.T.D. calls were made during the period when the telephone was admittedly dead? The Department has admitted in the affidavit that while repairing cable fault there is every possibility of cable pairs in respect of one telephone getting accidentally connected to some other telephone and on account of the same, S.T.D. calls recorded against the said telephone during the period when the telephone of the petitioner was dead could be a consequence of the usage of the telephone line of the petitioner by some other subscriber.
15. In view of the above, we have absolutely no hesitation in stating that not only the Telephone Department is responsible for delay in settling the complaint of the petitioner, but that it is also responsible for harassment to the petitioner. It is an instance of inefficient handling of the matter, as a result of which the petitioner had to visit the Telephone Department on more than 20 occasions and had to spend time, money and energy, to get rebate of Rs. 242/-, which should have been granted by the Department to the petitioner without any fuss.
16. The matter does not end there. When the petitioner went to pay the unpaid Bill dated 1st May, 1997, on his own, the petitioner was asked to pay delayed charges of Rs. 40/-. The petitioner had to approach the Director of Finance who insisted on a written application. All records were available with the Department and the Department had already decided to give rebate of Rs. 242/- and, as such, where was the necessity for insisting on a written application? This reflects a typical bureaucratic approach in dealing with the matter which could be sorted out, in the circumstances, without insisting on a written application. The petitioner had to draft and get the application typed and finally, the petitioner had once again to face the situation of being shunted from one table to the other and ultimately, a male clerk throwing the papers towards the petitioner and asking him to get a xerox copy of the application. There is a limit to which a reasonable man can tolerate and the cup of woes of the petitioner had already overflown, as a result of which he was forced to approach this Court by letter petition.
17. Initially, in affidavit dated 12th July, 1999, filed by the S.D.E. (Legal), it was stated that the respondent was contemplating to conduct an indepth enquiry in the matter and assured this Court that any staff of the respondent who is found guilty in the said incident will be suitably punished. In the second affidavit dated 19th July, 1999, of the S.D.E. (Vigilance), it was stated that the petitioner was asked to assist the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer to identify the clerk who mis-behaved with him, but that the petitioner did not come forward to co-operate and, as such, it was not possible to identify the staff member who is reported to have misbehaved with the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 2nd August, 1999, stated that he had received the communication dated 9th July, 1999, through the post only on 15th July, 1999, and, as such, it was not possible for him to appear in the said enquiry before the Telephone Department on 13th July, 1999, but he did attend the enquiry later, on 21st July, 1999. In the third affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent by the S.D.E. (Legal), it is stated that it is difficult for the respondent to identify any particular officer responsible for issue of Bill dated 1st September, 1996, wherein the S.T.D. calls were shown during the period when the telephone was dead. It is explained that the calls are automatically recorded in every telephone exchange in terms of metered units and as per the said procedure Bills are issued. It is further stated that the respondent comes to know about any discrepancy in Bill resulting from any fault reported by the subscriber only when the same is brought to the notice of the Customer Service Centre of the Department. The telephone of the petitioner was admittedly dead from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996 and during this period the petitioner had, on five occasions, gone to the Telephone Department. The disputed Bill is dated 1st May, 1997, wherein S.T.D. calls are shown during the period when the telephone was dead. It appears that there is no mechanism in the Department to inform the computerised billing section about the details of the dead telephone so that even after the computerised bill is available, the same can be checked with reference to the period during which the telephone was dead so that any calls made during the period when the telephone was dead can be deducted at that stage. Be that as it may, it was further stated in that affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999, that since time has elapsed, no useful purpose would be served by an enquiry and, as such, no enquiry was ordered. In affidavit dated 19th July, 1999, without verifying as to whether the petitioner had received letter dated 9th July, 1999, to appear in the enquiry on 13th July, 1999, it was stated that the petitioner did not co-operate, whereas the petitioner had received the said letter dated 9th July, 1999, only on 15th July, 1999, This once again illustrates as to how the Department chooses to put the blame on the consumer. It is apparent from the said affidavit dated 19th July, 1999, that the staff of the respondent do not use badges with their names on their person while on duty. The wholesome practice that the officers/employees especially dealing with public, should use badges with their names on their person while on duty and name plates should be kept on the tables where they work, has a distinct purpose, namely to facilitate the public to know the names of the employees in case any complaint was to be made regarding working, behaviour, or otherwise. The respondent is shirking to conduct enquiry into the matter now and in case the employees had badges on their person, or on the tables at which they work, the identification by the consumer petitioner would have been easy. It is, therefore, considered necessary that the Department should adopt the system of using badges with names on the person of the officers/all employees of the Department, including linesman and other persons who go for out door duty. Likewise, the scheme of name plates on the tables of employees officers should also be introduced. These steps will imbibe and inculcate sense of responsibility, improve efficiency will help in better control, accountability and transparency, will act as restraint on irresponsible behaviour while dealing with public and will facilitate the authorities in making enquiries into the complaints against the defaulting and negligent employees concerned. It was pointed out by the Calcutta High Court way back in 1983 in Birendra Kumar Bhuwalka v. Union of India & others, (supra) that in proper cases the officers should take drastic steps against such defaulting officers and must deal with such cases in such a manner so that it must be a pointer to all such sorts of negligent telephone officers not to indulge in these sort of acts. The Department shall, therefore, take steps to introduce these measures within a period of two months and report compliance.
18. The matter in question which should have been sorted out by the Department within reasonable time has taken almost three years. Before we conclude we would also like to make some observations on the attitude adopted by the Department in this matter. All sorts of excuses were put forward in the affidavits filed by the Departmental Officers, namely that the Chief Accounts Officer did not have authority; S.T.D. facility was not locked by the petitioner and as such he was responsible for misuse of telephone. Without verifying whether the petitioner had received letter to appear for enquiry, it was stated in the affidavit that the petitioner did not co-operate. Reference to Excess Metering Committee in the circumstances, was futile exercise which only delayed in settling the grievances. Where was the question of benefit of doubt, as stated by S.D.E. (Legal)? This theory has been developed to frustrate the petition. Initially it was assured that indepth enquiry would be conducted but later S.D.E. (Legal) stated that it is not possible to conduct the enquiry.
19. There does not appear to be any sincere desire to sort out the complaints in an effective and expeditious manner. In case there is any grievance cell, then the said cell must look into the grievances of consumers by calling or obtaining information from various persons in the Department, rather than shunting the consumer from one table to the other as had happened in the instant case. The respondent shall, therefore, take appropriate steps and provide effective and expeditious mechanism to settle the grievances of the consumers within a reasonable time, keeping in view that the telephone has become an indispensable necessity of life. Action taken by the respondent in this behalf be reported in two months.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the respondent to accept the amount due under Bill No. 764371 dated 1st May, 1997, without surcharge for delayed payment. In the facts and circumstances, we further direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 800/- (rupees eight hundred only), in respect of the expenses incurred by the petitioner for making 21 trips to the office of the respondent and for spending time, money and energy in drafting letters/applications. Besides that, it is considered that compensation of Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand only), as claimed by the petitioner, be ordered to be paid to him by the respondent for inconvenience, harassment and inefficient handling of the matter by the employees of the respondent. In addition, we award costs of Rs. 2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred only), to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Department shall, however, be free to fix the responsibility in the matter and recover the amount from the employees officers who are found responsible in this behalf.
21. We wish to record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Advocate Shri Sonak, in the matter.
22. Petition allowed.