Calcutta Telephones vs HARI PRAKASH GUPTA

INITIALLY this appeal was preferred by the Calcutta Telephone under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from an order dated 16.5.92 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.J. case No. 34 of 1992 and after hearing entensively to both the parties represented by Mr. Sankar Kar, Counsel for the Calcutta Telephone and Mr. N.R. Mukherjee Counsel for the respondent on several occasion an order was passed on 17.7.92 by us in the matter directing the Calcutta Telephone inter alia to reconnect the Telephone line of the respondent without reconnection charge of Rs. 100/- upon payment of the provisional bills for the disputed cycles 11/91 and 1/92 and such provisional bill to be raised and forwarded to the respondent, we further directed the Calcutta Telephone authority to pay an Ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent.

THE said order was not complied with by the Calcutta Telephones and in the premises we directed the Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum, Calcutta Telephones to appear in person to show-cause as to why the said order was not complied with; the said Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum Mr. A. Sarkar failed to appear before us inspite of repeated reminders and ultimately an warrant of arrest was issued against him and only the thereafter he entered personal appearance before us. On 18.12.92 the matters was heard once again in presence of both the parties and D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephones only as that date the Telephone Authority submitted the provisional bill (issue date 1.12.92) for disputed circle 11/92 and 1/92 before this Commission and the respondent deposited a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- drawn in favour of Calcutta Telephones against the said two provisional bills for Rs. 2,500.00 each. THE D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephone though did not gave any cogent explanation whatsoever as to why he had not complied with our order dt. 17/7/1992 till the date however gave an order undertaking in that date he will with the order dt. 17/7/1992 Subsequently on 23.12.90 we passed another order directing the D.E.F.C Calcutta Telephones to show-cause as to why proceeding u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act should not be started against him. As because it was brought to our notice by the respondent that till 23/12/1992 the order dated 17/7/1992 had not been complied with.

We are sorry to observe that a responsible officer of a Central Government organisation specifically in public unility sector could act in such a deplorable manner and flout the order of this Commission set up under an Central enactment time without numbers.

5.SUCH kind of tendencies will be greatly prejudicial to this beneficient piece of legislation. Indeed such kind of unholy precedence set up by the Calcutta Telephones would be greatly detrimental to the C.P. Act itself. Be that as it may, the respondent had brought it to our notice by way of applications that due to the delay and delatoritness on the part of the D.E.C.F Calcutta Telephone in complying with the orders of Calcutta District Consumer Forum and then order of State Commission time and again directing the D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephones to reconnect the Telephone of the respondent before us, his trading business has suffered losses as he has not been able to run it properly without the Telephones and in the premises prays for an compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 per month when his Telephone was lying disconnected inspite of specific orders.

THE respondent has also prayed that the Telephones authorities be directed not to raise bills for the cylce period when his phone was not working and the matter was sub-judice. The Counsel appearing for the Calcutta Telephones had file his objection in writing to their prayers made by the respondent. We have gone through all the applications filed by the parties in the matter and have both the parties at length. Considering all the facts we direct the Calcutta Telephones to reconnect the telephones of the respondent Shri Hariprakash Gupta without reconnection charge and collect the cheque deposited by the respondent as the payment of provisional bill from the registrar of the State Commission, that the Telephones line to be guarded against further disconnection. During the pendency of the matter before C.D.F. The telephone bills raised by the Telephone authority for the cycle period 3/92, 5/92, 7/92, 9/92, 11/92, 1/93 and 3/93 when the phone was lying disconnected is to be kept in abayance and liberty is given to the parties to agitate the matter before the Calcutta District Forum by filing application petition there in the pending C.D.F. Case No. 34 of the 1992 and act according to the order passed.

WE further hereby direct the D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephones to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- along with the sum of Rs. 1,000/-being the Ad-hoc compensation granted to the respondent in our earlier order dated 17.7.92 as penalty for not complying with the order of the Commission.

THE said sum of Rs. 5,000/- is to be deposited with the registrar State Commission, West Bengal by way of a Bank Draft drawn in favour of the respondent Shri Hari Prakash Gupta. Liberty is given to the respondent to agitate the compensatory part before the C.D.F.

Telephone Authority will comply with the order with an week from the date of the receipt of the same.

THE case is disposed of. THE matter is remanded to the C.D.F. with an directions to be heard and dispose of within a weeks from the date of 1st hearing. Case disposed of.