JITENDER MOHAN GUPTA vs M.T.N.L.

THE complaint of the appellant seeking damages for non-restoration of the telephone connection for 13 months and also refund of the bills raised during the period when the telephone remained disconnected which he had paid under protest was dismissed vide order dated 11.6.1997 passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

THOUGH the facts referred in the impugned order suffer from obscurity but in brief the facts germane for our purpose are like this. The telephone of the appellant was disconnected on 27.10.1993. Thereafter the appellant got a duplicate bill prepared and paid the amount along with Rs. 100/- as reconnection charge. Even then the telephone of the appellant was not restored and as such the appellant filed a suit and the same was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant had to file an appeal which was decided vide order dated 18.10.1994 that the telephone of the appellant should be restored. During this period the appellant was getting telephone bills along with telephone calls which he paid under protest. Even after the order of the Appellate Court the telephone of the appellant was not restored and after filing contempt petition the telephone was restored in November, 1994. In all the telephone remained out of order for 13 months.

Pitted against these facts the Counsel for the respondent contended that on identical facts a civil suit was filed which was dismissed but in appeal the respondent was directed to restore the telephone which was duly restored on the condition that the appellant shall make the payment of the bills raised by the respondent and as such the complainant is not entitled to any damages or refund of the bills raised by the respondent.

BE that as it may fact remains that the telephone of the appellant remained disconnected for a period of 13 months and the question of raising any bills for this period did not arise as no calls were possible from a telephone connection which was disconnected. So far as the civil suit filed by the appellant is concerned, it was mainly for restoration of the disconnected connection and not for damages for non-restoration of the connection for 13 long months. Since the dispute of bills for the period during which the telephone remained operative was dealt with in the civil suit and ultimately in the appeal the respondent was directed to restore the connection we deem it appropriate to confine ourselves to the bills raised by the respondent during the period when the telephone remained disconnected and quash the same by allowing the appeal partly. Payment made against any such bill shall be refunded within one month. We do not feel inclined to award any damages for non-restoration of the disconnected telephone because of the matter having already been adjudicated by the Civil Court but award Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal partly allowed.