DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MADRAS TELEPHONES vs AYISHA MOHIDEEN

THE two opposite parties against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum, are the appellants.

THE complainant is a subscriber to a phone. She failed to pay the amounts due under three bills dated 7.6.1990,7.8.1990 and 7.10.1990. Her telephone was therefore disconnected on 10.7.1990. THEn subsequently on 9.9.1991 the complainant had paid the entire amount of Rs. 1,834/- that was due under the said three bills and then she applied for re-connection of the telephone. THE case of the complainant is that inspite of several letters written by her between 9.10.1991 and 23.6.1993 there was no response from the opposite parties officers of the Telephones Department. She also sent a registered notice dated 23.6.1993 to the opposite parties and to that they replied expressing their inability to give re-connection. Now the case of the complainant is that the said conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these grounds the complaint was filed. The opposite parties contended that the amount due under the said three bills were paid only after a period of more than one year and therefore the telephone connection of the complainant had been treated as "permanently closed" and inspite of knowing that fact the complainant had vainly been making representations and therefore her request could not be acceded to. In these circumstances there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, came to the conclusion that even though it was the discretion of the opposite parties to give re-connection, they had taken unduly long time in writing to the complainant that re-connection was not possible and this would amount to deficiency in service on their part. On this finding the District Forum ordered re-connection of the complainant''s telephone and also directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- besides a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings.

NOW in the appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/opposite parties contends that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in law and therefore it is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel brings to our notice Rule 169(i) of the Posts and Telegraph Manual Volume XIV, the material portion of which reads as follows : "169(i) If the telephone dues are not paid by the subscriber on or before the due date, his telephone is disconnected and it will normally be restored on the payment of full amount of the dues with the re-connection fee as prescribed in para 66 in P & T Manual Volume XII. The subscriber is also liable to pay the rent for the period the telephone remained disconnected. If the dues referred to above are not paid within six months from the date of disconnection, the connection should be treated as permanently closed and will not be restored. Thereafter the request of the party for restoration should be treated as a request for a new telephone connection. These instructions will apply to both Flat and Measured Rate system of charging the rentals. (ii) ................... (iii) ................."

A reading of this rule would show that if the telephone bills are not paid within six months from the date of disconnection, the disconnection would be treated as "permanently closed" and that will not be restored. Therefore, since the bills in question in the instant case were not paid for over one year there is justification in the opposite parties saying that the disconnection was treated as "permanently closed". At that point, the only course open to the complainant was to apply for a fresh connection. This being the rule, the District Forum''s observation that there was considerable delay on the part of the opposite parties in replying to the complainant that re-connection was not possible, will not be relevant to the point at issue viz., whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in view of Rule 169(i) of the Posts & Telegraph Manual Volume XIV. The District Forum has also observed that the opposite parties have not returned the deposit amount. But that also cannot be a point in favour of the complainant because the complainant could always get back whatever amount was due to her from the opposite parties. In these circumstances it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the order of the District Forum is not correct. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.