Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs BHIMA NEWAR TURA

HEARD Mr. S.C. Shyam learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party and Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant.

THE complainant who is the respondent before us filed Complaint Petition No. 8/99 before the District Forum, Tura stating that since the later part of September 1999 her telephone No. 20103 at Tura became one-way i.e., she was able to receive but unable to make any calls which, in telecom parlance, is known as ''outgoing barred. Her verbal and written complaints sent by Regd. Post evoked no response whatsoever from the appellant/opposite party (hereinafter the ''Telecom Dept.'') who even continued to charge full rental. She was, therefore, forced to file the complaint on 23.12.1999 and she prayed that the Forum issue suitable directions to remove the deficiency in service and to compensate her for the inconvenience, harassment, loss and injury suffered by her due to the negligence of the Telecom Dept. The Telecom Dept. admitted before the District Forum that the phone in question had been kept under outgoing-barred w.e.f. 17.9.1999 but stated that this was done due to non-payment of telephone bills dated 1.7.1997, 1.9.1997, 1.5.1998, 1.7.1998, 1.9.1998, 1.11.1998, 1.3.1999 and 1.5.1999 amounting to Rs. 11,784/-, by the complainant.

The complainant denied that any bill was outstanding for payment on her part and produced the latest original receipt bills dated 18.9.1999 and several other bills of the years 1997 and 1998 where the column indicating ''Arrears'' was admittedly blank. Her contention was that whatever bills she had received she had paid and that no bills were in fact outstanding against her which was proved by the Telecom Department itself as all the later Bills issued by them showed blank figures in the columns meant for indicating the arrears.

THE District Forum examined the complainant as well as several officers of the Telecom Dept. THE admission of the witnesses for the Telecom Dept. to the effect that, (a) no prior intimation had been given to the complainant before barring outgoing calls; (b) no reply was given by them to the complainant''s complaint dated 9.11.1999 about the outgoing-call bar; (c) no letter/notice was issued to the complainant informing her about non-payment of arrear bills; and (d) there was no entry in the column against the heading "arrears" in the complainant''s later bills, came on record. Thereupon vide its order dated 11.10.2001 the District Forum held that barring outgoing calls without prior intimation and without issuing any notice informing the complainant about outstanding bills, if any, against her telephone was an act of gross negligence and deficiency in service by the Telecom Dept. and that this had caused mental harassment to the complainant, particularly as she had her old and sick father at home as well as three children staying far away outside the State and needed to make calls all the time. The Forum also arrived at the finding that the complainant had paid and cleared all bills and had no outstanding bills.

THE Forum accordingly directed the appellant/opposite party to compensate the complainant for her loss and mental agony by payment of the sum of Rs. 240/- for every month that her telephone was kept outgoing barred and also a sum of Rs. 50/- for every such day. The present appeal is filed against this impugned order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the District Forum, Tura, praying for its being setting aside/quashed on the ground that it is erroneous and not tenable under law. We have thoroughly perused the memorandum of appeal, the impugned order dated 11.10.2001 as well as the entire case records which were called for from the District Forum. We have also heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party, the major thrust of whose argument is that the Telecom Dept. is very much within its rights to withdraw the facility of outgoing calls before disconnection of the telephone in cases of non-payment of bills and that the finding of the Forum that there were no dues outstanding against the respondent/complainant is arbitrary and perverse on the face of the letter dated 13.1.2000 submitted by the SDO (Telephones) Tura to the Forum, giving details of the outstanding bills amounting to Rs. 11,784/-.

HAVING given our deep consideration to the matter we are unable to be convinced by the learned Counsel''s arguments. We find that even during the course of hearing before the District Forum, other than the above-mentioned letter dated 13.1.2000 submitted by the Telecom Dept. which merely gave the date-wise break-up of the sum of Rs. 11,784/- alleged to be outstanding against the complainant, no other evidence was led by the Telecom Dept. to prove that such bills had in fact been raised by them and that they were served upon the complainant and were outstanding. Even copies of the bills said to be outstanding were not filed before the Forum which was the bare minimum that the Telecom Dept. was required to do to substantiate its claim. Moreover learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party has been unable to clarify why the later bills which are on record showed no figure in the ''arrear'' column if there were any arrears as alleged by the Telecom Dept. He has also not been able to show us under what provision of law they claim the right of barring outgoing calls for non-payment of bills and that too without giving any prior notice/intimation to the user, while at the same time charging full rental for the telephone.

WE are of the view that the barring of outgoing phone calls by the Telecom Dept. on the ground of non-payment of arrear bills without giving any prior notice/intimation of such arrears to the telephone subscriber, either by giving details of the arrear bills in the subsequent bills or by separate communication, is an act of negligence and constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Dept. In this view of the matter, the finding of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Dept. made by the Forum in its impugned order dated 11.10.2001 is unexceptionable and the appellant/opposite party has not been able to make out any case for interference therewith.

Although the appellant/opposite party has not specifically challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum we feel that it would however be just and proper to dwell upon this aspect. It is well settled that the award of compensation by the Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has to be made only on well-recognized legal principles governing the quantification of damages or compensation and the compensation to be awarded has to be quantified on a rational basis on a consideration of materials produced before the adjudicating Forum showing the extent of injury suffered and the manner in which and the extent to which monetary loss has been caused to the complainant.

KEEPING these principles in mind and in the facts and circumstances of the case as are evident from the materials produced before the District Forum by the complainant we are of the considered view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum calls for some modification and the appellant ought to get some relief on this count. Accordingly, the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the District Forum is amended to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 10/- per day for every day that the telephone was barred from making outgoing calls, instead of Rs. 50/- per day as awarded by the Forum. The other reliefs granted by the Forum will however remain unaltered and stand confirmed. It is directed accordingly. No costs.

THE order dated 9.2.2002 passed by this Commission, partly suspending operation of the Forum''s order dated 11.10.2001 stands vacated. The Registry shall return the case records to the District Forum, Tura together with a copy of this order. Appeal partly allowed.