AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS order shall dispose of two appeals Appeal No. 983 of 1996 filed by the Telephone Department and Appeal No. 986 of 1996 filed by Mr. N.R. Goel against the order dated 24.9.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal. According to the complainant, Mr. N.R. Goel, telephone No. 24736 was installed at his house at Karnal while he was posted as Additional Director, Food & Supplies, Haryana. The telephone was having the facility of STD but it had been barred on the request of the complainant dated 26.6.1993. Four bills subsequent to that period ranging from Rs. 460/- to Rs. 490/- were sent to him. However, when he received the bill for the period 16.4.1994 to 15.6.1994 amounting to Rs. 13.584/- he sent a registered communication to the Telephone Authorities on 20.7.1994 bringing it to their notice, that since there was no STD facility attached to his telephone, the bill was highly excessive. However, to avoid the levy of surcharge, the complainant paid the bill. In the meantime he received a notice dated 20.9.1994 from the Telephone Department intimating him that he had not paid the bills for March, May, 1994 and July, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 10,940/- and Rs. 13,984/- respectively. The complainant represented to the Telephone Department for the issuance of the provisional bills while contesting their correctness. In the meantime on a visit from Chandigarh to Kamal, he found his telephone having been disconnected for non-payment of bills. Aggrieved against that he approached the learned District Consumer Forum. In their reply, the Telephone Department pleaded that the S.T.D. facility attached to the complainant''s telephone was no doubt disconnected with effect from 26.6.1993, but it was reconnected with effect from 15.2.1994 on a written request made by the son of the complainant on the letter-head of the complainant him self. The Telephone Department pleaded that since the complainant happened to be an I.A.S. Officer and his son was making a request on the letter-head of his father, showing respect and courtsey to him, the STD facility was restored. Thus, the amount of the telephone bills was correct, being based on the actual number of calls. After examining the matter in detail, the learned District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that the Telephone Department should not have restored the STD facility to the telephone of the complainant on the request made by his son who was not an authorised person. On that basis, the complaint has been disposed of by granting the following relief : "Therefore, we direct opposite party to recalculate the amount of the bills for the period 16.2.1994 till the barring of the STD facility from the telephone of the complainant on the basis as if the complainant had utilised one half of the total local calls shown in the relevant bills and then refund the amount if charged in excess from the complainant. Opposite party shall also not charge any surcharge on the said amount. The amount, if found payable to the complainant, shall be refunded within 60 days from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 18% p.a from today till the date of payment. However, if any amount is found due towards the complainant on the basis of clarification made above, opposite party shall serve a fresh bill to the complainant or add the said amount in the next bill and complainant shall make the payment accordingly. Opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant in relation to Complaint No. 42/95. For the above said reasons the two complaints stand disposed of."
IN the appeals before us, the learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has vehemently contended that the act of restoring the STD facility to the telephone of the complainant on the request made by his son cannot be termed as deficiency in services especially when the complainant had been frequently visiting Karnal from Chandigarh and had been staying with his son. We find merit in this contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Telephone Department as by restoring the STD facility to the complainant''s telephone on the request of his son the Telephone Department has in fact shown efficiency in service instead of any deficiency. Otherwise also, the telephone was installed at the residence of the complainant at Karnal where the complainant had been staying while on tour from Chandigarh to Karnal where his son was running his business. If the telephone bills had not been paid in time by the complainant the Department was well within their competence to disconnect the same and in these circumstances the question of issuing prior notice to the complainant did not arise. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Telephone Department deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal, dated 24.9.1996 is set aside. Since we have allowed the appeal of the Telephone Department, as a result thereof the complaints are dismissed and the cross appeal filed by the complainant stands automatically dismissed because the relief claimed therein is mainly with regard to the legality of the demand made by the Telephone Department for the rental of the telephone apparatus after the disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of the bills. However, it is made clear that if the complainant wants to have his telephone restored with or without STD facility, the Telephone Department shall do it promptly by realising the reconnection charges in accordance with their rules. Appeal No. 983 of 1996 allowed & Appeal No. 986 of 1996 dismissed.