ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs P.A. MURUGESA RAJA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated the 27th day of October, 1997, in O.P. No. 81/97 on the file of the Viridhunagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Srivilliputhur.

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. The complainant is having a telephone connected to his residence indicator number being 22539 and he, it is said, having STD facilities from 25.1.1992 onwards. On 21.2.1997 the complainant subscriber received a bill for Rs. 5,914/-. Likewise on 21.4.1997 he received a bill for Rs. 2,308/-. The correctness of the amount mentioned in the bills is challenged. In view of the objection raised by the complainant a revised provisional bill for Rs. 774/- dated 21.2.1997 was issued in respect of the first bill for Rs. 5,914/-. The second bill dated 21.4.1997 for Rs. 2,308/- it is said had been paid under protest. The balance amount as specified in the first bill after payment of the amount specified in the revised bill was not paid and therefore the telephone was disconnected. It is the contention of the complainant that there could have been defects in the metering system but for such defects the escalated bill could not have been issued. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to compensation in an appropriate amount for mental agony and anguish so caused to him.

It is under these circumstances the complainant resorted to launch a complaint before the Forum below praying for the reliefs of reconnection of the disconnected phone and other reliefs as specified in the complaint.

THE opposite party however filed objection reflecting as below : The complainant being provided with a telephone bearing No. 22539 is admitted. It is further admitted that the said telephone is with STD facility on and from 25.1.1992. The excess metering complaint was investigated and all the equipments and meters were tested and found working alright. The Department is entitled to disconnect any telephone if the rental, local, trunk-call charges or any other dues as prescribed by the Telephone Authority is not paid on or before the due date as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules. Since the complainant has not paid the telephone dues as demanded, his telephone has been disconnected. The reconnection of the telephone can be considered only if the complainant pays the disputed bill plus surcharge and the rental for the intervening period alongwith reconnection fee from the date of disconnection as per Rule 443. The complaint in such circumstances deserves to be dismissed with costs of the opposite party.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record and after hearing the projection to hues of views of the parties through their respective Counsels, passed an order as below : (i) THE complainant is liable to pay only Rs. 750/- in respect of the bill dated 21.4.1997. (ii) He is entitled to get a refund of Rs. 1,558/- (Rs. 2,308 - 750 = 1,558). (iii) THE disconnected telephone must have to be reconnected without any charge being paid on the part of the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of its order. (iv) THE opposite party must have to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards mental agony and anguish to the complainant besides costs of Rs. 1,000/- totalling to Rs. 6,558/- within one month from the date of its order and if the opposite party fails to so pay the amount, such amount to be paid will carry interest @ 18% p.a. and, (v) THE complainant will be at liberty to invoke the wrath of the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case of failure on the part of the opposite party to comply with the directions as above issued.

Aggrieved by the order as above, the present action has been resorted to by the opposite party/appellant. Arguments of learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Srivatsan, representing learned Counsel Mr. S. Srinivasan appearing for the appellant/opposite party and learned Counsel Mr. M. Agni, representing the respondent/complainant hinge on the question of applicability or otherwise of the salient provisions adumbrated under Rule 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The said provision reads as under : "7-B. Arbitration of disputes-(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus, is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the Arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."

The word "any" occurring in the expression "if any dispute concerning any telephone line, appliance or apparatus occurring in Sub-section (i) of Section 7B as extracted above is of signal significance. The disputed bills in question are in relation to use of the apparatus, telephone. Such being the case, to say, that the dispute in question was not covered by Sub-section (i) of Section 7B of the Act cannot at all be countenanced. To this sort of a view, seal of approval had been granted by the National Commission vide, II (1996) CPJ p. 79, in General Manager, Telecommunications, Jaipur & Ors. v. Hsy. Shanthan. Such being the case, it goes without saying that such a dispute has to be referred only for arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the award to be made by the Arbitrator shall be conclusive and final. As such the award passed by the District Forum without application of Section 7B is not at all sustainable and the same deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.

WE, therefore, refer the matter to arbitration by the Department under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Department shall refer the matter for arbitration within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order by the Department.

WE may also observe that the order as above will have the effect of rendering the disconnection of the telephone connection of the complainant for the non-payment of the balance of amount to be paid in respect of the bill dated 21.2.1997. In view of the order of the Forum below the complainant/subscriber is having the facility of his phone having been reconnected. Such facility, we rather feel because of our order should not be disrupted all of a sudden. The amount involved also appears to be huge. Therefore, the said amount is ordered to be paid within a period of 2 months from today. If the said amount is not paid within the said period, the opposite party Telephone Department will be at liberty to disconnect his telephone. The appeal is thus disposed of. But in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.