V.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN vs GENERAL MANAGER (TRA) TELECOM DISTRICT

DESIRABLE it is to pen down a common order in these actions.

A.P. No. 789/1999 arises out of an order in O.P. No. 10/1996 while A.P. No. 790/1999 arises out of an order in O.P. No. 82/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in these actions.

One V.G. Gopalakrishnan, Proprietor of M/s. V.G.G. Vasambal Vermicilli Company, Pudukkottai District, it is said, is a subscriber of a telephone. His old telephone number was 60628. The said telephone number was changed and a new number was given in the place of old telephone number. The new number of the telephone is 20628. For the period between 16.4.1995 and 15.4.1995, he received a bi-monthly bill for Rs. 3,853/-. He also received another bill for the period between 16.4.1995 and 15.6.1995 for an amount of Rs. 5,076/-. The bill amounts for the two periods were excessive and out of proportion to the previous bills. Therefore, he laid a complaint to the Department of Telecommunications that calls not made by him were recorded and that perhaps was the reason for the excessive amount made in the two bills.

AGGRIEVED by the excessive bills amounts, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below by launching of a complaint against the opposite parties namely, (1) The General Manager (T.R.A.), Telecom District, Department of Telecommunications, Trichy-620 001 and (2) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Department of Telecommunications, East 2nd Street, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District, which was taken on file by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai in O.P. No. 82/1995 on 3.12.1995. Subsequently, it appears, his telephone was disconnected on 8.8.1995 for the non-payment of the two disputed bills as above stated. He again raised a consumer dispute against the same opposite parties as in the previous case by filing a separate complaint before the very same Forum on 10.1.1996, which was taken on its file as O.P. No. 10/1996.

CURIOUS enough, Secretary, District Consumer Rights Protection Council, T.S. No. 1384, West 2nd Street, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District against instituted two separate complaints for and on behalf of the said V.G. Gopalakrishnan, Proprietor, M/s. V.G.G. Vasambal Vermicilli Company, Pudukkottai District as against the very same opposite parties on the very same cause of action and for the very same reliefs as prayed for by the said V.G. Gopalakrishnan in his two previous complaints. The complaints so filed were also taken on file giving the same O.P. Numbers as had been given in the complaints preferred by the said V.G. Gopalakrishnan. The opposite parties also filed separate versions in both the complaints. In pith and substance what they would contend is that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Even at the time of installation of the telephone, ISD/STD facilities were provided to the telephone of the complainant and the spurt in calls during the relevant period of the disputed bills were due to the usage of ISD facilities available to the telephone. The calls made were correctly metered to the electronic exchange and there were no defects at all. Due to the non-payment of the disputed bills amount by the complainant, his telephone connection was disconnected as per rules. As such both the complaints are liable to be dismissed. The then Presiding Deity of the Forum below one Mr. Abdul Ghani, a retired District Judge and two Members namely Smt. K. Tamilarasi and Mr. C. Kumar passed a common order in one line on 18.3.1997 to the following effect : "Issue Provisional Bill for the period from 16.4.1995 to 15.6.1995 and reconnect the phone immediately."

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite parties filed two appeals namely A.P. No. 311/1997 against O.P. No. 82/1995 and A.P. No. 312/1997 against O.P. No. 10/1996 before this Commission and the Bench of this Commission consisting of Hon'ble Justice E.J. Bellie and Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy disposed of the appeals by passing similar order in each of the appeals on 19.11.1998 which gets reflected as under : "The order under appeal is absolutely non-speaking one and in one sentence. Therefore, we remand the matter to the District Forum for proper order as per law."

IT appears, Amendment petitions have been filed by the Secretary, District Consumer Rights Protection Council, Pudukkottai District for amending the cause title of complainant and the petitions so filed had been allowed substituting the name of V.G. Gopalakrishnan, Proprietor, V.G.G. Vasambal Vermicilli Company, S/o Vasudevan, No. 5516, South 4th Street, Pudukkottai as the complainant in both the complaints instituted by the Secretary, District Consumer Rights Protection Council, Pudukkottai District. Subsequent to the remand, one Mr. M. Peter, a retired District Judge became the President of the Forum below and the Bench consisting of Mr. M. Peter (President), Smt. K. Tamalarasi (Member) and Mr. R. Mathialagan (Member) passed a common order in both the Original Petitions (O.Ps.) on 17.9.1999 dismissing both the complaints without costs.

Aggrieved by the order as above, the present actions namely A.P. Nos. 789 and 790/1999 had been resorted to by the aggrieved complainant by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. S. Palanivelayutham.

THE respondents/opposite parties in both the actions on service of process entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. R. Kanniappan. Subsequent to the filing of the appeals, there was a change of Vakalat for the opposite parties and one learned Counsel Mr. M.T. Arunan filed Vakalat for the respondents/opposite parties in both the actions. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Palanivelayutham appearing for the appellant/complainant and learned Counsel Mr. M.T. Arunan appearing for the respondents/opposite parties in both the actions.

FROM the pith and substance of the arguments of the said learned Counsel the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below in dismissing both the complaints on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is sustainable in law. Two questions emerge for consideration in these actions. They are : (1) Whether the disputed bills for the relevant periods are the resultant products of recording of calls not at all made by the complainant ? (2) Whether there was any justification for the disconnection of the telephone of the complainant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?

There is no pale of controversy that the Exchange to which the telephone is connected is an Electronic Exchange. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that though the complainant did not ask for STD/ISD facilities being connected to his telephone, yet such sort of the facilities were made available to his telephone even at the inception. The spurt in calls during the relevant periods in question is apparently due to the ISD calls emanating from the telephone of the complaint which had been duly recorded in the Exchange. Such being the case, to say, that the disputed bills were issued to him contained charges for the calls not made by him cannot at all be acceded to when especially all the particulars of the calls as emanated from the phone had been furnished to the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant did not pay the bill amount for the two disputed periods within the targeted time. Such being the case, there is no other go for the Telephone Department but to disconnect the telephone of the complainant for the non-payment of the bill amounts due. In such circumstances, to say, that there was no justification in the disconnection of the telephone cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at the hands of this Commission. Thus both points are answered against the complainant/appellant. Such being the case, it goes without saying that both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Before parting with the appeals, we want to observe certain reflections formed on our minds in the process of perusal of the records in these actions. It is rather puzzling to note as to how the Forum below presided over by an experienced retired District Judge namely Mr. Abdul Ghani and the two Members Smt. K. Tamilarasi and Mr. C. Kumar entertained two sets of two different complaints on one and the same cause of action from two different complaints. One Thiru V.G. Gopalakrishnan is the allegedly affected party/complainant in the sense of his telephone recording excess metering calls besides being disconnected when dispute had been raised as respects the quantum of calls said to have been made by him. We are unable to understand as to how on earth the said Gopalakrishnan can come forward with two complaints - one for excess metering calls and other for disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of the disputed amount of the bills showing excess metering calls. Even if he had filed two complaints of such a nature, how the experienced District Judge Mr. Abdul Ghani allowed the two complaints being taken on file by giving two separate numbers. The taking of the complaints in two separate numbers itself is an indication that the said Judge is oblivious of even the rudimentary principles of law despite his so-called experience for very many years in the Civil Judiciary. What is further worse is the said Presiding Deity also allowed the Secretary, District Consumer Rights Protection Council, Pudukkottai who instituted two similar complaints for and on behalf of the said V.G. Gopalakrishnan on the same cause of action. The further agonizing factor is that those two complaints were given the same number as the previous complaints filed by V.G. Gopalakrishnan. All these aspects of the matter we have pointed out not with a view to castigate the then Presiding Deity but with a view to make it appear that the other Presiding Deities of the various Fora functioning in this State should not commit such fundamental mistakes.

IN fine, subject to the observation as above, both the Appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases. Appeals dismissed.