Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs RAVINDER KUMAR

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28.4.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.2.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party Nigam was directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation for mental agony, etc. for having disconnected the telephone connection, to the respondent/complainant.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent was having telephone number 276148 installed by the petitioner Nigam. Respondent alleged that though he has been paying the bills regularly still the telephone connection was disconnected illegally on 20.2.2003 without serving any notice and on approaching the petitioner, he was told that he had stood surety for Rakesh Kumar, another telephone subscriber and as Rakesh Kumar had not paid telephone charges, his telephone was disconnected. Complaint filed by the respondent seeking certain reliefs, was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that Rakesh Kumar was granted STC PCO No. 65846. Respondent who stood surety for him, had undertaken by executing a bond before the Executing Magistrate that in case of non-payment of dues by the said PCO holder, he shall be responsible for all his dues. The respondent defaulted in making payment of Rs. 13,013 due from Rakesh Kumar despite notice dated 20.1.2003 sent by registered post and, therefore, his telephone connection was disconnected on 18.2.2003. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Agnani for petitioner. Despite service of notice no one is present for the respondent.

It was not denied by the respondent that he stood surety for Rakesh Kumar. Moreover, copy of bond having been executed by the respondent is placed on the file. As may be seen from the order of District Forum a copy of the letter/notice dated 20.1.2003 sent to the respondent by registered post by the petitioner Nigam was filed by way of evidence before the Forum. District Forum''s order would show that the ground on which complaint was allowed was that the petitioner had not made any effort to realize the outstanding amount from Rakesh Kumar. To be only noted that under law the liability of principal debtor and surety is co-extensive and petitioner Nigam was, thus, not supposed to have exhausted all remedies against Rakesh Kumar before initiating steps for recovering of dues from the respondent. Further, the order of State Commission notices that no law/rule was produced by the Nigam which entitles it to disconnect the telephone of the respondent for non-payment of dues by Rakesh Kumar. Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules extracted in para No. 7 of revision petition authorizes the Telephone Department to disconnect telephone of a surety if he fails to clear the dues of the person for whom he had stood surety. Petitioner Nigam had, therefore, not committed any deficiency in service in disconnecting the telephone of the respondent on 18/20.2.2003. Orders passed by Fora below cannot be legally sustained.

ACCORDINGLY, while allowing revision, orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed with cost of Rs. 3000. Revision Petition allowed.