MANAGER TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs LEO REBELLO

THIS appeal is filed by appellant against the order of District Forum, Bombay directing to install a telephone connection at the residence of Respondent and pay Rs. 13,650/- as compensation.

DR. Leo Rebello lodged a complaint before District Forum on 26.3.1990 alleging that he is a qualified Naturopath (Medial Profession) author and Poet and as such eminent public man. DR. Rebello had therefore approached the appellant that his application dated 29.12.1984 for grant of telephone be considered as a "Special Category". He further alleged that he paid Rs. l5,000/- for renewal of his temporary connection. But instead of any relief his telephone connection was discontinued abruptly on 3-3.1990. DR. Rebello therefore, claimed the relief of restoration of his telephone connection as well as compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and costs from appellant Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. The Manager, Telephone Nigam filed written reply opposing the claims of Dr. Rebello. It has been submitted that Dr. Rebello could not be considered as eminent public man on the basis of his qualification as a naturopath. According to opposite party, Dr. Rebello could not satisfy the test laid down under Indian Telegraph Rules and hence could not be put in special category for grant of a telephone connection. Further submission of the Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. is that the temporary connection granted to Dr. Rebello in July 1986 was extended from time to time for a period of 3 years and was disconnected after its expiry on 22.3.1990. According to Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd., no application was made by Dr. Leo Rebello for extention of time of his temporary connection.

The District forum observed that the Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. filed its version when the dictation of the judgment had already commenced and did not care to make any submission earlier when notice under Section 13 was served. According to District Forum no important point was made out by Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. but merely contained that Dr. Leo Rebello did not produce any evidence to support his claim of eminent personality to consider him in special category. The District Forum also observed that in his rejoinder Dr. Leo Rebello has stated that all the necessary documents to show his eminence in the various fields were filed and therefore, version of the Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. does not carry any weight. However, we find no positive finding has been given by the District Forum to consider Dr. Leo Rebello as eminent person to entitle him for grant of Telephone connection. But the District Forum accepted the claim of compensation of Dr. Leo Rebello and ordered the payment of Rs. 13,650/- to him by Manager, Telephone Nigam ltd. The Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. has challenged the aforesaid order of District Forum in this appeal.

ON the first date of hearing of this appeal on 20.7.90 both the parties were heard. It was proposed to Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd., whether Dr. Leo Rebello could be considered as eminent person on the basis of 1988 Dag Hommar Skjold International Award for alternative medicine which was brought by him in Court to entitle him for grant of telephone connection in special category. Since the Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd., could not verify its genuineness, time was asked to verify it. Hence, the hearing of appeal was postponed to 26.7.90 for verification of the award by Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. It appears that the original was examined by Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. on the subsequent day. ON 26.7.1990 a statement was made on behalf of Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. that Dr. Rebello is being put in special category on the basis of the aforesaid certificate and that within two weeks time, permanent telephone connection would be installed at the resident of Dr. Rebello. Similarly, the Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. agreed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited by Dr. Rebello towards security deposit after adjusting the dues if any. In view of the two reliefs mentioned above, being fairly and graciously agreed to be granted by the appellant Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. in favour of Dr. Rebello the finding of District Forum on these points as well as the contentions raised on these two grounds in this appeal do not survive for consideration. We do not express any opinion as to whether Dr. Leo Rebello is entitled for grant of Telephone in special category as the eminent person on the basis of the material available; since the required discretion in relation to the definition of "Eminent Publicmen" has been exercised by Head of the Tele-communication Circle, Bombay. ON merits it has been submitted by Shri Rajguru on behalf of the appellant that the grant of Rs. 13,650/- to Dr. Rebello does not appeal to reason in as much as the order of the District Forum is silent as regards the details and the basis for its calculation. On careful consideration of the impugned order, we find that the District Forum has rejected the claim of Dr. Rebello about his trip to Cuba for a Conference as well as the loss for three months'' period for want of a telephone connection. No cross appeal is filed by Dr. Rebello against the rejection of his aforesaid claim. Hence, there is no need to consider it in this appeal. However, the District Forum directed the Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs. 13,650/- to Dr. Rebello towards the half amount of total paid by him for his temporary connection on the assumption that he was entitled to get the permanent connection as an eminent person. In our view this finding of the District Forum is based on erroneous consideration of Rules of the Telephone Nigam Ltd. in relation to the grant of temporary connection of telephone. There are Indian Telegraphs Rules. In those Rules, a temporary connection is liable for twice the rates of rental specified in Section III. Section VII provides Rule for casual and temporary installation. Rule 2 is relevant and is as under:- "The rental for a departmental exchange connection given on a temporary basis shall be levied at twice the rates of rental specified in Section III."

In case of Dr. Rebello it is a fact that the telephone connection bearing No. 6822741 was a temporary connection which was renewed from time to time upto 3.3.1990 for a total period of 3 years. It is also a fact as stated by Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. and not controverted by Dr. Rebello that there was no application for renewal of the temporary connection by Dr. Rebello after 3.3.90. According to Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd. the total period for such a temporary connection can be extended for a total period of four years. But since there was no request from Dr. Rebello for extension of period beyond 3.3.90 there was no alternative but to disconnect the telephone connection in question. In view of these facts and the afore- said rules we find that the grant of Rs. 13.650/- towards compensation to Dr. Rebello is not justified and thus the direction given to Manger, Telephone Nigam Ltd., in this behalf requires to .be set aside.

WE further find that the subjective satisfaction as regards the status of a person to be considered as eminent under the Rule has to be exercised by the Head of the Telecommunication Circle on the basis of norms laid down under the Rules. The initial material placed before the Manager, Telephone Nigam Ltd. by Dr. Rebello was not enough. The 1988 Dag Hammarskjold Award is dated 21.12.1988 whereas the initial application is made by Dr. Rebello on 18.6.1984 and it was registered on 29.12.1984 when the aforesaid Award was not granted to Dr. Rebello. How he could be considered in a special category in 1984 in absence of an Award? Thus by no stretch of imagination the regular application for grant of permanent telephone connection'' to Dr. Rebello could be considered. Consequently, he could not avail of the half charges. Therefore, the grant of 5% interest on the calculated amount of Rs. 13,650/- is redundant and hence set aside. Similarly, Rs. 300/- paid by Dr. Rebello were towards installation charges of temporary connection and hence are not refundable. However, we find that grant of costs of Rs. l,000/- to Mr. Rebello is reasonable. We, therefore, maintain the order granting costs of Rs. 1,000/- to Dr. Rebello. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum directing the payment of compensation of Rs. 13,650/- with 12% interest p.a. to Dr. Rebello is set aside. However, the order of granting costs Rs. 1,000/- to Dr. Rebello is maintained. Since during the pendency of this appeal permanent telephone connection is granted to Dr. Rebello, the direction given by the District Forum to install the Telephone at the residence of Dr. Rebello does not survive and hence set aside.

NO orders to costs. Appeal partly allowed.