C.P.KHAITAN vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TELEX) CALCUTTA TELEPHONE

THAT the Telex No.21-4167 of the complainant remained out of order from 1.4.1989 to 18.8.1990 and it was restored for a few days while it operated from 19.8.1990 and it was restored for a few days while it operated from 19.8.1990 to 1.11.1990 and thereafter from 2.11.1990 the Telex Number of the petitioner/ complainant has been disconnected and uptill now the Telex Number has not been restored. It is stated that the petitioner/ complainant paid Rs. 6,000/- on account of rental for the said telex for the year 1989-90, although he did not receive service of the said telex during the year 1989-90 at all. It is further alleged that although there was no telex service available to the petitioner it raised fictitious bill dated 22.9.89 for Rs. 312/- and another bill dated 23.10.89 for Rs. 6,372.50 for call charges during the period when telex was completely out of order. It is stated by the petitioner that after prolonged persuasion in this department rebate was granted for entire amount of those bills by the Divisional Engineer, Calcutta Telephone and that the Divisional Engineer has also granted on 18.8.91 rental rebate for 464 days and for 94 days from 26.7.87 to 30.9.87 and from 2.9.88 to 28.9.88 was granted on 25.3.91 for the back period during 1987-88. It is also contended that the Account Officer submitted a fresh bill on 4.6.91 amounting to Rs. 5289/- for the payment after adjustment of all rebates. It is the allegation that the claim for rental rebate from 2.11.90 until restoration has not been accepted by Divisional Engineer (Telex) on the plea that rental rebate during the period the telex remained under temporary disconnection is not admissible as per rules and the said disconnection was perhaps made while dispute was negotiated for settlement with the Divisional Engineer (Telex) for which he granted rebate only on 18.2.1991 and as it was delayed for taking decision the telex number of the petitioner was disconnected for which the petitioner shall not be penalised and claimed that the petitioner is entitled to get rental rebate from 2.11.90 until restoration of the telex line. It is alleged that the temporary disconnection was made arbitrarily by the department on 26.12.89 while rental rebate was granted from 11.5.89 to 17.8.90. It is denied by the petitioner that a free disconnection was made in the month of November/December, 1990 and the said plea is taken by the opposite party is just to deprive the complainant from getting rebate from 2.11.90. It is further alleged that the department of the opposite party always take the plea for cable fault, cable theft etc. for month''s together during the dispute and persuasion period and the same has been found baseless as their departmental machine found some defects in connection of the telex machine. It is the allegation that the alleged non payment of bill during the disputed period of interruption and raising of wrong bill for substantial amount cannot be justified for disconnection of line temporarily as the partly rebate for rental and call charges was granted only on 18.2.91 and 13.3.91. It is further alleged that the Telephone department having failed to confirm the date of temporary disconnection they have imported a new story that a line was initially disconnected temporarily for non payment of bill dated 28.5.90 for Rs.1,500/- being a part of the advance rental as per letter dated 16.1.92 issued by opposite party. It is a fallacy on the face of record. While the rebate was granted on 13.3.91 how the arrears bill of Rs. 1,500/- dated 28.5.90 remained unpaid. In such circumstances the petitioner/complainant received an illegal notice dated 5.3.92 from Account Officer, telephone Revenue that if the payment of the arrear amount is not made within 17.3.92, the line would be permanently disconnected on 3.4.92. The petitioner further contended that it sustained loss of Rs. 5,000,00/- due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for such a long period, accordingly the petitioner prayed for an injunction restraining the opposite party from recovery of the telex line permanently and to restore the telex line immediately to grant rebate from 2.11.90 until restoration of the telex line without disconnection charges and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- due to non availability of telex service for such a long period of cost etc.

THE defence case is that D.E. Telex granted rental rebate from 11.5.89 to 17.8.90 for 464 days and that no fault was docketed on 2.11.90 by the complainant and that the such telex No. 4167 was under temporary disconnection due to non payment of bill since 6.6.91 and the telex line was ultimately recovered on 6.12.91 under work order dated 6.9.91 hence sanction of rental rebate from 2.11.90 onward is not apparently admissible. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation or any other relief as prayed for and sought for dismissal of the complaint. JUDGMENT It is admitted by the opposite party/ respondent that the rental rebate for the period from 11.5.89 to 17.8.90 totalling 464 days was granted due to disorder of telex line for the said period. But as regards allegation about the disorder and/or disconnection from 2.11.90 uptil now no explanation has been given by the opposite party. From the aforesaid facts it appears that the telex was only in operation for a period of 76 days from 18.8.90 to 1.11.90 and thereafter from 2.11.90 it is lying inoperative until now. That the telex No. 4167 was under temporary disconnection due to non-payment of bills since 6.6.91 and thereafter the said telex number permanently recovered on 6.12.91 as per work order dated 6.9.1991. 3. It is not understood to us how the rental paid on account for the year 1989-90 for Rs. 6,000/- in advance is adjusted when the telex for the entire year of 1989-90 was inoperative or out of order. It is observed that during the year 1991 only a telex was operative for 76 days and when the telephone authority allowed rebate for 464 days and 94 days on account of the previous year as per letter No.TNC/RR/4167 dated 1.3.91 it could be safe arrived at a decision that the rental rebate for 558 days on account of the previous years could be utilised for the year 1990-91 and / or 1991-92. In the year 1990-91 the telex service was available for 76 days only and thereafter no telex service was available to the petitioner for a single day. The only averment made by the opposite party for non payment of the bills since 6.6.91 telex line was recovered by works order 6.9.91 although the petitioner/complainant had the credit balance with the telephone authority as per rental rebate granted on 1.3.91. There is no particulars of the unpaid bills during the period from 1990-91 and /or 1991-92. It is admitted by the opposite party about wrong bill dated 22.9.89 for Rs. 312/- and another dated 23.10.1989 for Rs. 6,3372.50 was issued in this regard and subsequently withdrawn. That the opposite party allegation that no fault was docketed on 2.11.1990 by the complaint is denied by the complainant. The complainant, on the other hand, alleged that inspite of several complaint made to the telephone authority at Telephone Kendra, New C.I.T. Road, Calcutta each and every time they refused to give docket number and informed the complainant that due to temporary disconnection of the telex line they are unable to give any docket number for the complaint. Ultimately the petitioner vide its letter dated 26.12.1990 addressed to the Area Manager, Calcutta Telephone informed the entire state of affairs and the said letter has been made Annexure ''B'' to the reply and the reply dated 11.2.1991 was also received by the complainant from the Telephone authority which disclosed that due to temporary disconnection, the telex was not operating.

It is unbelievable to us that the complainant having not received the telex service for such long period did not make any complaint although he paid the rental charges upto 1989-90 and due to non-rendering of service for 464 days upto 17.8.1990 the rebate for 464 days and 94 in previous occasions the rental rebate was allowed by the telephone authority and the same was allowed by the telephone authority and the same was lying in credit of the complainant/ petitioner and that amount could have been utilised for the rentals of the telex for the year 1991 and as in 1991 the service of the telex was available to the petitioner for 76 days only, the credit amount still could be utilised for in the year 1991-92.

AS the petitioner for the purpose of business hired the telex machine for his business purpose and the service of the telex was not available year after year to the petitioner for which he suffered irreparable loss in his business. It is the admission of the opposite party by way of giving rental rebate for 464 days from 11.5.1989 to 17.8.1990 and 94 days in previous years it shows serious negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also surprising to note that the telex line of the complainant was disconnected without service any notice or information to the complainant. Only fake allegation of non payment of the bill from 6.6.91 is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view that the petitioner had at his credit balance by way of rental rebate available from the opposite party being 464 days and 94 days. We are of opinion that the petitioner/complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the petitioner of complaint and also he is entitled to substantial damages due to loss of his business for negligence and extreme deficiency in service for not rendering the telex service properly to the petitioner/ complainant for years together. We, therefore, award that the telex line of the complainant be restored immediately and rental rebate be granted from 2.11.90 until restoration in addition to the rental rebate granted in favour of the petitioner/complainant. We, further award the damage of Rs. 58,334/- @ Rs. 12,500/- per year due to non rendering of telex service to the petitioner/complainant from 1989 except a few day uptil now.

WE award cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner. The opposite party shall comply with this award within 30 days from the date of communication failing which penal action will be taken as per provision of Consumer Protection Act. Complaint allowed. ______________