CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION vs SANTOSH KUMAR MODI

THIS is an appeal by the opposite parties.

CASE of complainant is that he is subscriber of Telephone No. 684 in Angul Bazar. His telephone was disconnected even after payment of the amount demanded in bill dated 1.8.1991. This is on account of negligence of the opposite parties and he is entitled to compensation. Case of opposite parties is that when the bill dated 1.8.1991 for Rs. 791/- was not paid till 16.8.1991, a telephone reminder was issued and again another telephonic reminder was issued on 26.8.1991. Thereafter, although the complainant paid the bill on 26.8.1991 in the Post-Office, hedid not intimate the opposite parties. Without getting any intimation, the telephone was disconnected on 10.10.1991.

District Forum considering the cases of both parties found that opposite parties were negligent.

BILL is no doubt dated 1.8.1991. Opposite parties have not proved when the bill was received by complainant. It is well known, in the bill it is stamped that the payment is to be made within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the bill. Even if it is not so stamped, reasonable time should be given to a subscriber. Even if there was delayed payment, by the time there was disconnection the amount due had already been paid. Post-Office is not the agent of the complainant. It is the agent of opposite parties to receive amount. Where an amount has been received by the agent, it shall be treated to be the amount paid to the opposite parties. For the mistake of an agent, a third party should not suffer. Before disconnecting on 10.10.1991 opposite parties had enough time to investigate whether payment had been made. If a telephonic reminder would have been given to the complainant just before disconnection, he could have intimated the opposite parties that he has already paid the amount in the Post-Office. Therefore, casualness of opposite parties is clear in the present case. We are satisfied that the compensation directed to be paid is justified. In fact, it should have been more in the present case. A subscriber can alone appreciate the inconvenience caused when a telephone is out of order or is disconnected. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs. 200/-. We may note that State Exchequer should not suffer for negligence of its officer. Opposite party shall do well for recovery of the amount from the officer for whose negligence the telephone in question was disconnected. Mr. P.N. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Central) submits that the amount may be adjusted towards rent payable for the future period. This is a fair suggestion. We accept the same. In case the opposite party adjusts the amount in future bills payable, the amount shall be treated to have been paid by adjustment. Appeal dismissed with costs.