D.G.BHATTACHARJEE vs CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

THIS appeal is taken up for hearing alongwith the Appeal No. 451 /A/1998 as they arise out of the same judgment and common questions of law and fact are involved. Vide order dated 2.7.1998, the Forum allowed the complaint petition in part with a direction to the opposite party to revise the bill raised by the Department on 5.8.1997 in accordance with the observation made in the body of the impugned order. It was further directed that upon payment of such charges by the complainant, the opposite party will restore the telephone and install a new one at the premises as per the prayer of the complainant. What happened in this case that the telephone in question was installed at Broad Street. The complainant having wanted to shift it to 5, Thakurbari Road, applied in proper Forum on 15.2.1992. As the Department did not respond favourably, the complainant cancelled his earlier request and wanted the Department to instal the said Telephone at Palm Avenue. But still there was no response from the Department. So, he approached the Forum claiming appropriate relief in the matter of shifting of telephone and for compensation for alleged deficiency in the service of the Department and for refund of amount paid in excess.

THE case of the Department is that the Telephone in question was permanently disconnected on 11.5.1993 due to non-payment of bill. Prior to that there was temporary disconnection from l4.7.1992 due to non-payment of bills. It has been claimed that the complainant by his letter dated 16.7.1997 agreed to pay off the outstanding dues alongwith rentals for the intervening period i.e. from the date of intervening period i.e. from the date of permanent disconnection till the date of restoration and accordingly the bill for Rs. 9,410/- was raised and sent to the address of the complainant. It is further stated that the said bill having not been honoured, the restoration and normal shifting of the telephone could not be done. We have heard the parties at length and perused the impugned order. In course of hearing it transpires that the telephone in question was not shifted nor was it restored. Mr. Bhattacharyya, the appellant in S.C. Case No. 451/A/1998 submits that he wants the telephone to be shifted to a residence somewhere in Jadavpur area and he will be satisfied if the shifting at the new address is done and no claim for outstanding dues is made. It transpires that a work order has been issued by the Department but it has not been given effect to. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya the said work order is wrong inasmuch as it was not for a safe custody. Learned Counsel for the Department submits that the case is barred by limitation. The complainant has ceased to be a consumer ever since the line was disconnected i.e. from 11.5.1993. He submits that until all the outstanding dues are cleared the reconnection and consequently shifting of the disputed telephone cannot be done. According to him, the rules do not permit such prayer of the complainant. He submits that the direction of the Forum directing refund of the amount of bills is also not possible to be complied with because the rules in this regard do not permit. Mr. Bhattacharyya the appellant submits that he has asked for the production of the relevant files but despite such request both to the Forum and to the Commission, the Department did not produce it. He alleges that the file has been forged and fabricated. After hearing the parties for a considerable period we think that this is a dispute which requires elaborate evidence and cannot be determined either by the Forum or by the Commission. We think it advisable to relegate the appellant to Civil Court for proper adjudication of the dispute which we hereby do especially in view of the fact that the complainant has again applied that the telephone be shifted to a new residence in Jadavpur area. The complainant may, therefore, seek proper remedy before the appropriate Forum. With this observation, the appeals are disposed of. The judgment will govern both the appeals viz. 354/A/98 and 451 /A/98. Appeals disposed of.