AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TELECOM Department has filed this appeal aggrieved of the order dated 21.7.1998 passed in Case No. 45/95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad (for short the ''District Forum'') whereby the complaint for alleged illegal disconnection was allowed and the TELECOM Department was ordered to return the amount of Rs. 605/- of reconnection charges, Rs. 1,000/- for mental pain, and Rs. 395/- as costs of the proceedings.
FACTS giving rise to this appeal are thus : The respondent is a subscriber of Telephone No. 2424, whose telephone was disconnected on 14.9.1995 for non-payment of the bill dated 1.8.1995. The respondent alleged that he did not receive the bill, hence, he obtained a duplicate bill and deposited the bill amount of Rs. 1,085/- on 17.9.1996. On that reconnection was ordered on realisation of reconnection charges of Rs. 605/-, which was deposited by the respondent on 18.11.1996 and the telephone was restored on 4.12.1996. Disconnection was illegal as bill dated 1.8.1995 was not received by the respondent. Hence, the respondent claimed loss in business of Rs. 150/- per day of Rs. 70,350/- and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and suffering. The complaint was resisted. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence held that the bill dated 1.8.1995 was not received by the respondent, therefore, disconnection for the non-payment of the bill was a deficiency in service, hence, ordered to return the amount of reconnection charges and to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings. The question whether the Telecom Department should sent the bill or if bill is not received it is also the duty of the subscriber to collect, was considered by the National Commission.
In case the District Manager, Patna Telephones v. Dr. Vinay Kumar Sinha, III (1994) CPJ 11 (NC), the National Commission observed in para 5 thus : "5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the records of the case. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have held the Department guilty of negligence in the rendering of service mainly on the ground that arrears of the bills dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 were not shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991 which was received by the complainant otherwise he would have paid the arrears as he had been paying the amounts of the bill promptly. We are of the opinion that the said ground was not sufficient for allowing the complaint. Even if we believe the complainant''s case that he had not received the bills dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 it was his duty to find out why the bills for two billing cycles had not been received by him. A person who wants to exercise his rights must also duly discharge his obligations. The complainant is an educated person. He should have been alerted when he did not receive the bills for two successive billing cycles. The Department is not duty bound to intimate the subscriber about the outstanding dues to show such arrears in the bill for the succeeding periods. On the other hand in case the subscriber should be more cautious and he has not received the bill for a billing cycle he should make proper inquiries and obtain a duplicate bill and make the payment. The telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the dues. Hence it cannot be said that the disconnection of the complainant''s telephone was illegal."
IN the case of Ajay Dubey v. General Manager, Telegraphs and Telecommunications & Ors., I (1995) CPJ 223 (NC)=1995 (1) CPR 777 (NC), the National Commission in paras 6, 7 and 9 observed thus : "6. After hearing the parties we are of opinion that the complainant in the present case is definitely entitled to some relief. As held by the State Commission the bimonthly bills were neither prepared nor issued to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was not in the know of the amount payable by him. The disconnection of his telephone in March and July for non-payment of bills cannot be held to be justified.
As is clear from the Telegraphs Act, 1885 and INdian Telegraphs Rules, 1951 and the Circular No. 4/59/85-TR dated 9th April, 1986 issued by the Government of INdia, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications exhaustively deal that how the bills are to be prepared and in what manner the complaints filed by the subscriber about the excessive bills have to be dealt with. IN the present case no action was taken on the complaint made by the complainant on his complaint made on 26th February, 1990. On the other hand his telephone was disconnected on 7th March, 1990. Similarly, no action was taken on the complaint made by the complainant vide his letter dated 6th July, 1990 addressed to the General Manager, Department Telecommunication.
The State Commission has remarked that the complainant has been clever and has allowed the arrears to mount. We have not been able to appreciate this remark of the State Commission. The complainant has been writing letters to the different officers of the Department but he was not getting any reply nor any action was taken on those letters. It is not the duty of the subscriber to approach the Exchange to find out the amount of his bill in case the bill is not sent to him."
In case of Ajay Dubey (supra), the National Commission has observed that it is not the duty of the subscriber to approach the Exchange to find out the amount of his bill in case the bill is not sent to him. The earlier decision of the National Commission in case of the District Manager, Patna Telephones v. Dr. Vinay Kumar Sinha (supra), was not brought to the notice of National Commission in case of Ajay Dubey (supra), therefore, the earlier decision was neither considered nor distinguished in later decision of Ajay Dubey.
IN view of the above, the case in hand is to be examined on its own facts. Admittedly, the telephone was disconnected for non-payment of amount of Rs. 1,085/- of the bill dated 1.8.1995, which according to respondent was not received by him. The respondent averred that he sent a letter Under Certificate of Posting on 6.8.1995 stating therein that he has not received the bill, of which no reply was sent and telephone was disconnected on 21.8.1995. The respondent after disconnection kept mum and waited for a long period of one year and after obtaining the duplicate bill deposited the amount of the bill on 17.9.1996 and reconnection charges on 18.11.1996. The conduct of the respondent reveals that he was not vigilant for which no blame can be thrown on the Telecom Department for award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, while maintaining the order of the District Forum of return of the amount of reconnection charges and costs, the order of payment of compensation is set aside. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. In the circumstances parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with record of the case. Appeal partly allowed.