SUB-DIVISIONSAL OFFICER, TELECOM vs SINGIRI MALLESHAM

IT is not in dispute that the complainant has applied for telephone connection under special quota during July, 1993 by paying an advance of Rs. 2000/-. The Telephone Department allotted a telephone bearing No. 22061 on 25.6.1993. Without issuing any notice, the telephone department disconnected the telephone on 10.10.1993. The complainant was under the impression that due to repairs, the telephone was not working. The complainant waited for sometime and made enquiries into the matter, and came to know that telephone was disconnected. Hence the complaint was filed for a direction to respondents to restore connection of telephone bearing No. 22061 and pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- for illegal disconnection of the telephone and costs.

THE opposite parties filed a counter on 7.1.1994 stating that the telephone of the complainant was disconnected without giving notice is false. THE case of the opposite party is that the complainant is dealing in unauthorised business of giving STD facility to Non-STD Subscriber. THE local police raided the premises and seized the imported equipment used by the complainant, and the Sub-Divisional Police of Jagtial who conducted the raid also passed on a copy of his report to the opposite parties. It is therefore, their case that since the complainant was using telephone clandestinely, they disconnected without giving any prior notice. The respondents filed another counter on 16.2.1994 stating that the complainant applied for telephone connection on 26.6.93 under special quota for Small Scale Industry as proprietor of M/s. Sridevi Enterprises located at Tower Road, Jagtial. But at the time of installation, the complainant requested in writing for a change of the address and to provide telephone at the changed address near Red Lips, Govindapally Road, Jagtial and accordingly telephone was provided at that address. On 8.10.93 that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagtial conducted a surprise raid on the premises of the complainant and found that the complainant was using imported telephone instruments and reported the matter to S.D.O.T. Basing on the report of the police, the telephone department disconnected the telephone temporarily without serving any notice. Since the Department has right to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber without notice in the event of misuse or unauthorised use of telephone accessories under rules. In order to avoid misuse of the telephone, it was temporarily disconnected and a notice was served on the complainant for unauthorised misuse of telephone on 21.10.1993 calling upon the complainant to explain the reasons, for using imported instruments without the permission of the telephone department. The allegation that the complainant did not avail STD facility is not correct. As per the records available in the telephone exchange, the complainant is heavy caller using STD and ISD facility very frequently and STD and ISD calls were made every day, and hence the action of Telephone Department without notice is justified under the telegraph rules.

The District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 50/- per day from 10.10.1993 to the date of restoration of connection and Rs. 200/- towards costs.

IN this appeal, it is submitted that there was large-scale misuse of the telephone and the complainant was unauthorisedly using and giving the STD facility to NON-STD subscribers. But it is to be seen that except the letter of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial, wherein it was stated that few persons whose names were mentioned in the complaint, which included the complainant were misusing the telephone, and they were unauthorisedly using the foreign equipment, there seems to be no enquiry made by the telephone department to find out whether the complainant was using the unauthorised foreign instruments and converted of the telephone into mini exchange. There is no material also placed on record before us to show what transpired in the cases said to have been booked against the complainant and also if any enquiry was conducted by the police in that regard. Since prima-facie, there is material in the form of a report of a responsible Police Officer that the complainant and others are mis-using the telephone, we are satisfied that the District Forum should not have directed the opposite parties to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day from 10.10.93 till the date of restoration of the telephone connection. We accordingly set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite parties to enquiry whether the complainant was using the telephone unauthorisedly by using some foreign instruments and the alleged activities said to have been indulged by the complainant.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The opposite parties are directed to hold enquiry and take appropriate action depending on the result of the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.