AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party in C.D. No. 385/95 on the file of the Ranga Reddy District Forum to which the matter was transferred from the Hyderabad District Forum (O.P. No. 1372 of 1994 before the Hyderabad District Forum) questions the order of the Ranga Reddy District Forum dated 21.2.1997 partly allowing the complaint of the respondent herein (complainant before the District Forum) and directing the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs together with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.1997 till the date of payment and directing the appellant to restore the connection of the telephone of the respondent within 24 hours.
THE case of the respondent in its complaint was that though it was not in default and it paid all the bills due and payable by it in respect of its telephone (bearing No. 668424) at Hyderabad, the same was disconnected by the appellant on 15.5.1994 and inspite of requests made and legal notice issued, connection was not restored. THE last bills dated 21.2.1994 (Ex. A-5) and 21.4.1994 (Ex. A-4) for Rs. 413/- and Rs. 547/- respectively were paid on 4.5.1994 and 13.5.1994 as evidenced by receipts bearing Nos. 0132416319 dated 4.5.1994 and 0151376304 dated 13.5.1994 respectively and no bills were pending payment on the date when the telephone was disconnected on 15.5.1994. Even though the appellant received notice and was represented by Counsel before the District Forum, no counter was filed. THE Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent/complainant filed his affidavit as evidence in support of what was stated in the complaint. THE bills dated 21.2.1994 and 21.4.1994 and also receipts showing payment of those bills were got marked. A copy of the Lawyer''s notice got issued by him dated 16.8.1994 was marked as Ex. A-1. He stated that Ex. A-1 notice was received by the appellant on 26.8.1994 (Ex. A-3 evidences that) and that reconnection of the telephone was demanded therein. After considering the material on record, the District Forum by order dated 21.2.1997 awarded damages of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable together with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.1997. The District Forum found that there were no arrears due from the complainant when disconnection was effected.
We find that disconnection of the telephone when all pending bills were paid and without ascertaining the fact as to whether the bills were paid or not, is bad. Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules authorises disconnection for non-payment of the bills without issuing notice to the customers. On the facts of the present case, we find that the disconnection of the respondent''s telephone was not justified and continuing the disconnection even after Lawyer''s notice was deficiency in service. Even after the present complaint was presented before the District Forum the respondent''s telephone was not reconnected. No explanation was forthcoming explaining why the telephone was not restored and whether any arrears were there warranting continuance of disconnection. Unfortunately the appellant had not filed its version before the District Forum and no material is there to show that the appellant gave any reply to the Lawyer''s notice on behalf of the respondent. The Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Company stated in his affidavit dated 18.11.1996 that no bills were pending payment as on 15.5.1994 when disconnection of the telephone was effected. He also stated that inspite of several representations the appellant had not responded and restored the telephone and that even though the Lawyer''s notice dated 16.8.1994 was received by the appellant on 26.8.1994, connection was not restored. Ex. A-4 discloses that the above due date for payment of the bill dated 21.4.1994 was 13.5.1994 and on that date it was paid. There was some delay in the payment of the bill dated 21.2.1994 due to be paid on 9.3.1994, but that was also paid on 4.5.1994, i.e. 10 days prior to disconnection, which payment was verifiable.
ON the facts of the present case, we have to hold that continuance of the disconnection of the respondent''s telephone clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Authorities. Telephone in modern times is not a luxury. It is an essential means of communication and a necessity for transacting business. Unexplained disconnection and continued deprivation of telephone service without good reason would be "deficiency" in service as that expression is defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because it would be "short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained" by the telephone department. The disconnection in the present case continued from 15.5.1994 till after the order of the District Forum on 21.2.1997, i.e., for nearly three years. We, therefore, hold that the damages of Rs. 5,000/- awarded are reasonable considering that the telephone is of a cement manufacturing company. However we find that the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum should be reduced from 18% to 15%. Subject to the said modification as regards the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.