DISTRICT MANAGER, PATNA TELEPHONES vs VINAY KUMAR SINHA

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the District Manager, Patna Telephones, Patna (Bihar) who was the Opposite Party in the complaint filed by the present Respondent Dr. Vinay Kumar Sinha before the District Forum. The case of the Complainant is that he has a telephone connection No. 227687. He has been regularly paying his telephone bills. He received a bill dated 1st September, 1991 for Rs. 318/- which was paid by him on 18th September, 1991. On 30th October, 1991 his telephone went out of order. On inquiry from the Telephone Department he came to know that the telephone had been disconnected for non-payment of bills dated 1st April, 1991 for Rs. 429/- and 1st July, 1991 for Rs. 523/-. The case of the Complainant is that no arrears were shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991 and he also did not receive those bills. According to the disconnection of his telephone was wrongful and he suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/-.

THE case of the Opposite Party was that several reminders were given to the Complainant but the amount of bills dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 were not paid. The last reminder was given on 28th October, 1991 on telephone which was received by one Shri Ashok. Therefore, the telephone was disconnected on 30th October, 1991 and the connection was restored when the complainant made the entire payment. The District Forum held the case of the Complainant as proved and awarded Rs. 2,000/- to him as compensation as his telephone remained disconnected.

THE Department filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The State Commission held that the arrears were not shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991, and had they been shown the Complainant would have paid the amount of the bills as he was regular in payment. Based on the above reasoning it held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Department and the Complainant had been rightly allowed compensation by the District Forum. The quantum of the compensation was also upheld on the ground that the Complainant is a practising doctor and an award of Rs. 2,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive for compensating him for the humiliation faced by him as also the extra efforts that he must have made in the absence of his telephone being in order to attend on his ailing patients. The Department has now come before us by means of this petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the records of the case. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have held the Department guilty of negligence in the rendering of service mainly on the ground that arrears of the bills dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 were not shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991 which was received by the Complainant otherwise he would have paid the arrears as he had been paying the amounts of the bill promptly. We are of the opinion that the said ground was not sufficient for allowing the complaint. Even if we believe the Complainant''s case that he had not received the bill dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 it was his duty to find out why the bills for two billing cycles had not been received by him. A person who wants to exercise his rights must also duly discharge his obligations. The Complainant is an educated person. He should have been alerted when he did not receive the bills for two successive billing cycles. The Department is not duty bound to intimate the subscriber about the outstanding dues to show such arrears in the bill for the succeeding periods. On the other hand in case the subscriber should be more cautious and he has not received the bill for a billing cycle he should make proper inquiries and obtain a duplicate bill and make the payment. The telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the dues. Hence it cannot be said that the disconnection of the Complainant''s telephone was illegal. Accordingly we hold that there was no deficiency in the rendering of service by the Telecom Department. We accept the present Revision Petition, set aside the orders of the District Forum and State Commission and dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.