DALBIR SINGH PUNIA, ADVOCATE vs S.D.O./AEPO TELEGRAPHS

THE virtually successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Kaithal seeking only the enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- granted by the District Forum.

SINCE the only issue is the quantum of compensation it is unnecessary if not wasteful to advert to the facts & merits. It suffices to mention that the complainant is a subscriber of telephone No. 2662 at Kaithal. It was wrongfully disconnected without giving any written notice and affording an opportunity to him in the 4th February, 1992. The same was not reconnected till more than five weeks thereafter on the 31st of March, 1992. The District Forum found in the appellant''s favour that the appellant was not served with the bill of Rs. 472/- and consequently no question of any refusal for the non-payment of the same would arise and disconnection was totally unjustified and unwarranted. It further held that certain additions to the bill were patently illegal and quashed the same. On these findings the relief was granted on the terms noticed at the very out let. Mr. J.K. Goel, the learned Counsel for the appellant rightly highlighted the persistent contumaciousness of the respondents department in dis-connecting the telephone without the assemblance of written notice or affording the least opportunity to show cause or making any delay. It was vehemently contended that in such a situation the award of penal damages alone could afford redress. There is patent merit in the aforesaid submission. This Commission in no uncertain terms has held in II (1992) C.P.J. 564, J.S. Rathee v. The Distt. Manager (Telecom) Ambala Cantt & Ors. as under:- " In the light of the above it is some-what plain that the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a subscriber''s telephone cannot be disconnected by the Department without first duly serving a written notice to that effect upon him and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the demand or to show cause against the same."

It is obvious that the aforesaid ratio equally covers the case in favour of the appellant. Be it said to the credit the learned Counsel for the respondent herein that he conceded that no written notice was at all given to the appellant, far from any opportunity afforded to reply to the same. It was further stated that because of this inherent weakness the respondent-department has not preferred any appeal against the order and the findings of fact have consequently become final against them.

It has come to the repeated notice of this Commission that despite the mandate given in J.S. Rathi case (Supra) and equally the subsequent departmental instructions at the highest level forbidding the dis-connection of a telephone without a written notice the junior staff and minions still persist in harassing the consumer with pre-emptory dis-connections. This is a tendency which needs to be curbed unhesitantingly. Until and unless such action is visited with penal consequences the deliquent officials of the respondent-department would not heed the mandate to the harassment of the helpless consumers. It becomes necessary in this context to award penal compensation. This apart the wrongful denial of the telephonic amenity provided to an Advocate like the complainant for a period of five weeks would itself result in a loss of much more than Rs. 2000/- which has been awarded by the District Forum. In our opinion the same errs on the modest side and on the grounds aforesaid, it merits enhancement.

FOR the fore-going reasons this appeal has to be allowed and the compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- only. The appellant is also entitled to his costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/-. The said amounts shall be tendered within one month from today, failing which the District FORum will enforce the compliance under Section 27 of the Act. Appeal allowed with costs.