DISTRICT ENGINEER, TELECOM, SRIGANGANAGAR vs TEJ NARAYAN SHARMA

THIS appeal has been filed by the District Engineer, Telecom., Sriganganagar and others, who were in Complaint Case No. 267/91 which was filed by the complainant-respondent in District Forum, Sriganganagar, against the order of the said Forum dated 29.6.92 whereby the District Forum awarded to total compensation of Rs. 2,800/- to the complainant. 2. - Dr. Tej Narayan Sharma is Chief Editor of a daily newspaper ''Tej'' issued from Hanumangarh Town of District Ganganagar. The had a telephone at his residence bearing No. 2215. A telephone bill dated 1.3.91 was received by him from the District Engineer, Telecom., Ganganagar for a total amount of Rs. 704/-. The due date of payment of this telephone bill as mentioned in the bill was 26.3.91. The complainant made payment of the amount of this telephone bill on 30.3.91 in the post office vide Receipt No. 71952/0091. The alleged that despite payment of the amount of the bill on 30.3.91 in the Post Office; his telephone connection was disconnected by the . The telephone connection was only restored when the complainant showed to the SDO Telephones and Junior Engineer the receipt regarding the payment of the telephone bill. According to the , the telephone connection was restored on 10.5.91. 3. The Opposite Parties stated in their version that the amount of the telephone bill dated 1.3.91 was payable upto 16.3.91, but the payment was not made in time. A list of defaulters in payment of telephone bills was received in the office of the Junior Telecom. Officer, Hanumangarh Town on 12.4.91. A telephonic reminder was attempted, but no talks took place because none responded on the telephone. The telephonic reminder was, therefore, attempted on another Telephone No. 543. The telephone was lifted by a person named Surendra and he was told about the amount of the telephoned 11, but no information was given by him regarding deposit of the amount of the bill by the Complainant. Consequently the telephone was disconnected on 22.4.91. It was stated that no information had reached District Engineer, Telecom. Ganganagar''s Accounts Section upto 10.4.91 regarding the payment of the telephone bill by the Complainant on 30.3.91. The Complainant contacted the Accounts Officer, District Engineer, Telecome., Ganganagar on 6.5.91 and showed to him the receipt regarding payment of the telephone bill dated 30.3.91 and thereupon the District Telecom. Engineer directed for restoration of the connection which was restored on 6.5.91. According to the Opposite Parties, if a subscriber deposited the amount of the telephone bill after its due date, he has to inform the telephone exchange regarding the deposit having been made. But no such information was given by the Complainant. It was denied that the telephone was disconnected in order to cause loss to the Complainant or to harass him. The claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- made by the Complainant was denied. 4. The District Forum held that according to the rules the information received from the Post Office regarding deposit of the telephone bill amount should be entered into the record. The Opposite Parties had not established as to on what basis the Complainant was shown as defaulter and the necessary record was not produced. It was also held that it was necessary to give notice to the Complainant before disconnection. If the Complainant could not be contacted when telephonic reminder was given, another attempt to remind him should have been made. On this basis, it was held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The telephone of the Complainant remained disconnected for atleast 15 days from 22.4.91 to 6.5.91 despite payment of the amount of the telephone bill by him on 30.3.91. The District Forum, therefore, awarded Rs. 800/- as economic loss sustained by the Complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony and loss of reputation. Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Parties have filed this appeal before State Commission. It may be mentioned that appearance had been made on behalf of the Complainant-Respondent on 16.4.94, but not thereafter. We, therefore, heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 5. It was urged that if a subscriber does not deposit the amount of the telephone bill within time, he has to submit the receipt in the telephone exchange to show the payment of the telephone bill. It was also urged that if the time limit of the payment of the bill had expired, the subscriber should have got the date extended from the Competent Officer of the Department. However that was not done by the Complainant and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties if they disconnected the telephone on account of non-payment of the amount of the telephone bill. It was also submitted that the complainant showed the receipt regarding payment of the telephone bill amount on 6.5.91 and the telephone was restored on the same date. 6. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It may first be stated that the Opposite Parties were wrong when they pleaded in their version that the last date of payment of the amount of the telephone bill in question was 16.3.91. The complainant has produced photo copy of the telephone bill which goes to show that the due date for payment was 26.3.91 and not 16.3.91. Admittedly the Complainant had deposited the amount of this telephone bill at Post Office, Hanumangarh Sangam on 30.3.91. The Post Office is collecting agent of the Telecom. Department of the amount of telephone bills. It was the obligation of the Hanumangarh Sangam Post Office to inform the concerned in the Telecommunication of the District Engineer, Telecom., regarding the payment. We may state that the Government has issued various instructions in this regard. One of the instructions bearing No. 2-15/84-TR dated 24.9.84. THIS administrative instruction mentioned that a study conducted by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms had revealed the following causes of wrong disconnections:- (a) Statement of revenue realisation received from the counters not seen by the dealing Assistants in TRA Branch. (b) Statement seen by dealing Assistants, omission to note the particular telephone number for which payment has been received. (c) Failure to delete from the disconnection list the telephone numbers for which payment has been received. (d) Failure to intimate the credit (for payment received at the counter of concerned Area Manager Office) after the due date of payment to the concerned Accounts Officer (TR). (e) Wrong disconnection by the exchange staff of a telephone number not included in the disconnection list of TRA Branch. (f) Ignoring a payment made merely for the reason that the voucher was not attached by the Post Office with the list of Telephone Revenue Collection.

It would appear for the above causes mentioned in the instruction that if wrong disconnection was made due to above causes there was negligence on the part of officials of TRA Branch as well as the exchange staff. In earlier Circular No. 2-18-TR dated 22.4.80, elaborate procedure was laid down for disconnection of telephone for non-payment. THIS circular provided for preparation of disconnection list and its dealing by the Telecom Circles and Districts. Under the existing orders a telephonic reminder is given to he subscriber about the impending disconnection of the line for non-payment of the telephone bills. The line is disconnected only after a telephonic reminder. 8. The Opposite Parties did not produce before the District Forum the list of collections which was received in the Telecom. Office from the Post Office regarding the payment of this bill by the Complainant on 30.3.91. The list of collections sent by the Post Office must be in possession of the Opposite Parties and they should have been produced to show as to when this list was received in the Telecom, office. Again if there was delay by the Post Office in intimating to the Telecom. Office regarding the payment made by the Complainant of the amount of the telephone bill, the fault does not lie with the Complainant but with the Post Office which was the collecting agent of the Telecom. Department. 9. The Opposite Parties have produced a list before the District Forum regarding telephonic reminders. THIS list does not show that any telephonic reminder was given by the Opposite Parties to the complainant at Telephone No. 2215. In their version, the Opposite Parties mentioned that telephonic reminder was attempted on Telephone No. 2215, but talks could not take place. THIS fact does not find mention in the list of telephonic reminders produced by the Opposite Parties before the District Forum. In the list of reminders, as against Telephone No. 2215, mention is made of a name Surendra on Telephone No. 543 Hanumangarh Junction. THIS telephone number 543 was in the newspaper office of the complainant. The complainant in his cross-examination on affidavit has stated that he did not have any man bearing the name Suresh in his office. In any event, telephonic reminder was not given to the Complainant at his residential Telephone No. 2215 with respect to which the telephone bill was alleged to be outstanding and and at Telephone No. 543 as well Complainant was not contacted. Thus as a matter of fact there was no telehponic reminder to the Complainant and disconnection was made despite the fact that the Complainant had made the payment of the amount of the telephone bill on 30.3.91 without telephonic reminder to the Complainant. The disconnection was made on 22.4.91 i.e., 22 days after the deposit of the bill by the Complainant. In such circumstances, the District Forum was right in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties when they disconnected the telephone despite payment on account of their own negligence and without any telephonic reminder. THIS appeal has, therefore, no force in it and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.