TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs K.C.BHAGOTY

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.2.96 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guwahati in C.P. Case No. 172 of 1992.

THE subject-matter of the appeal relates to award of compensation by the District Forum for disconnection of Telephone No. 545792 belonging to the respondent. In connection with a bill dated 1.7.91 a notice was issued by the appellants which was disputed and a complaint was lodged by the respondent on 6.3.92. THEreafter, in connection with bill dated 1.3.92 notice was issued by the appellants. This also was disputed by the respondent by lodging a complaint dated 13.3.92. But without entertaining the complaints and without enquiring into the matter the appellants disconnected the said telephone on 19.3.92 i.e. after the second complaint was lodged. Situated thus, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer DISPUTES Redressal Forum, Guwahati and the District Forum by the impugned judgment held that the telephone was disconnected without taking steps to investigate the complaints lodged by the complainant and without issuing split bills in respect of the dispute. THE District Forum also expressed the view that disconnection, in all probability, was not justified. THErefore, the District Forum directed the appellants to investigate the complaints lodged by the complainant in respect of his three disputed bills within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for sufferance due to disconnection of the telephone and cost of Rs. 200/-. Hence the present appeal. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D.N. Bhagawati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

The only point raised by Mr. Choudhury is that the award of compensation and cost by the District Forum was not justified in view of the fact that the complaints were lodged only after receipt of disconnection notice. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the telephone was restored at the instance of the District Forum on 22.9.93. Therefore, the District Forum ought not to have awarded compensation and cost. Mr. Bhagawati, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment.

WE have perused the impugned judgment. It is true that the complaints were lodged after issuance of the disconnection notice. But that does not make any difference in view of the fact that when complaints were lodged, it was the bounden duty of the appellants to make investigation and till such time not to disconnect the telephone. In the present case the appellants overlooked two complaints, may be, lodged after issuance of disconnection notices and disconnected the telephone. WE find that disconnection was not proper. WE agree with the views of the District Forum that the disconnection was not justified. Disconnection was made on 19.3.92 and the telephone remained disconnected till 22.9.93 when the telephone was restored by the appellants on orders passed by the District Forum. For such a long period the complainant suffered. In view of the above, the amount of compensation awarded, in our opinion, is not excessive. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

MR. Choudhury submits that the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 200/- towards costs may be directed to be adjusted against the future bills. We find the submission to be just and reasonable. Accordingly, we order that amount of Rs. 2,200/- shall be adjusted towards the future bills. In the facts and circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.