Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Amir Khan

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.1.2002 in Case No. 69/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called as District Forum for short) awarding compensation due to disconnection of telephone connection granted by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.

THE undisputed relevant facts stated in brief are that the complainant/respondent obtained a telephone connection from the appellant from 1.5.1999 and has been served with a demand note dated 7.3.2001 to pay bill of Rs. 420/- towards balance payment relating to July, 1999 as well as Rs. 254/- for the current telephone charges totalling of Rs. 674/-. THE complainant/respondent herein, protested that he has already paid all the previous bills and outstanding amount for the month of July, 1999 as shown in the said demand note dated 7.3.2001 is not correct. However, despite written protest dated 12.3.2001 lodged by the complainant/respondent with the appellant, the telephone connection was disconnected on 14.7.2001 on account of non-payment of the said demand of Rs. 674/-. It is an admitted position that the complainant/respondent had paid the bill in July, 1999 and that no amount was outstanding as against him and only a sum of Rs. 254/- towards telephone charges for the month of February, 2001 was to be paid by him. The learned District Forum has held that the telephone was disconnected without justification, as there was no outstanding dues of Rs. 420/- for the month of July, 1999 which was being wrongly demanded by the appellant. Accordingly, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service inasmuch as telephone connection of bona fide customer was disconnected by the appellant. The District Forum, therefore, awarded Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment of the said amount. It also directed that after adjusting the sum of Rs. 254/- towards payment of telephone charges for the month of February, 2001 demanded by bill dated 11.2.2001, the telephone connection of the complainant/respondent shall be reconnected. Rs. 250/- was also awarded towards costs of the complaint.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant/respondent to pay the full amount of bill and that the appellant was justified in disconnecting telephone connection as the bill was not paid by the complainant/respondent. It was also urged that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is excessive and it deserves to be reduced.

NONE appeared for the respondent when the arguments of this appeal were heard. As noticed earlier, there was no outstanding balance of Rs. 420/- for the month of July, 1999 against the complainant/respondent. However, the same was added in the bill dated 11.2.2001 and a sum of Rs. 674/- was demanded, which included the current telephone charges of Rs. 254/-. It appears that the complainant/respondent not only orally protested earlier against the said demand, but had also sent a letter dated 12.3.2001, the copy of which is on record of the District Forum, wherein he detailed his grievance and requested the appellant to correct the mistake and withdraw the erroneous demand of outstanding dues of Rs. 420/-. Allegedly, the balance of telephone charges for the month of July, 1999. Further, it appears from the endorsement put by the Officer Incharge, Telephone Exchange, Ambagarh Chowki, that the complainant/respondent was directed to pay the bills as per demand i.e. including the wrongful demand for the month of July, 1999 till 14.3.2001. It is also not in dispute that since the bill was not paid as above, the telephone connection of the complainant/respondent was disconnected on 14.3.2001.

IT is, therefore, clear that though the demand of Rs. 420/- was erroneous and was not justified and had in fact been subsequently withdrawn by the appellant, yet the complainant/respondent was made to suffer disconnection of this telephone despite his written protest on 12.3.2001. The request of the complainant/respondent appears to have not been given any heed by the appellants official. He appears to have remained callously indifferent and did not even care to check up the correctness of the submissions made by the complainant/respondent. The apathetic attitude as above resulted in sufferance, mental agony as well as inconvenience to the complainant/respondent. Accordingly, there is no justification for interference in the finding of the learned District Forum that the appellants are guilty of deficiency in service. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is excessive, the same also does not deserve to be accepted. The discretion exercised by the learned District Forum calls for no interference on that count also. However, since the compensation as above would cover the harassment and inconvenience to the complainant/respondent, there appears to be no reason why interest should also be saddled on the said amount.

IN view of above, the impugned order awarding compensation is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant. However, the direction of the District Forum that interest thereon from the date of complaint till payment thereof shall be payable is set aside. It is further directed that amount as above shall be deposited/paid by the appellant within a period of two months from today, failing which the appellant shall also be liable to pay interest on the said amount as awarded by the District Forum.

IN view of the absence of respondent today during the hearing, the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Appeal partly allowed.