DISTRICT MANAGER, TELECOM vs SUBODH KR.SINHA

BOTH the above appeals viz; 57 of 91 and 60 of 91 are being disposed of by one order because both these appeals are against the order of the District Forum, Patna dated 20.6.91.

THE allegations in the complaint in brief are that Shri Subodh Kr. Sinha complainant before the District Forum applied on 17th May, 1989 to shift his telephone to his residence at Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna and in June ''89 a telephone instrument was installed at his changed address. THE telephone, however, did not function and when the complainant enquired from the telephone department about the dead telephone at his new residence, he was informed that the telephone was not working due to cable fault. On 23.9.89 the telephone started functioning and he was informed about a new telephone number. But the telephone again went dead next day and it started working satisfactorily only from the first week of November ''89. In the second week of February ''90 the complainant received Registered Notice from the Accounts Officer, demanding a payment of Rs. 1,000/- representing dues on bills dated 21.10.89 and 21.12.89. Since the telephone of the complainant was non-functioning during this period he filed a complaint before the Divisional Manager on 26.2.90, against being called upon to pay these two bills for which he received the notice from Accounts Officer dated 15.2.90 for Rs. 1,000/-. In this complaint he mentioned that there was no question of paying any amount as his telephone was not functioning in November, 1989. He also asked for detailed bills for the demand of Rs; l.000/-. THEre- after the complainant received a bill dated 21.2.90 for Rs. 290/- which was duly paid on 2.3.90. On 3.3.90, however, the complainant''s telephone was disconnected for the non-payment of bills for Rs. 1,000/- which related to two bills dated 21.10.89 and 21.12.89. THE complainant therefore, complained before the District Forum for rental rebate for the period June ''89 to October ''89 when the telephone was non-functional and for the period 3.3.90 when the telephone was disconnected upto the date of the restoration of this bill. He also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. THE complainant also sought a direction before the District Forum for restoring his telephone. The Telephone Department in its appeal No. 57 of 1990 has admitted that the shifting of telephone was done on 10.6.89 with a new number but on that very date the telephone of the complainant went dead and the same was restored on 6.8.89 but on account of cable fault the telephone again went dead on 8.8.89 and the defect could be rectified only on 3.11.89. Regarding the bills dated 21.10.89 and 21.12.89 the department says that they represented the dues for rental and shifting charges. In the bill dated 21.10.89 the claim was for rental charges for November and December'' 89 for Rs. 200/- and shifting charge of Rs. 600/- and the bill dated 21.12.89 was for rental charges for January, 90 and February, 90 i.e., Rs. 200/-. The department has also averred that the rebate on rental charges was given to the complainant for the period the telephone did not work. They have however disputed the rebate on rental for the period of disconnection to the date of restoration and the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- by the District Forum.

After hearing both the parties the District Forum passed the orders dated 20.6.91 by which order rebate on rental charges was given for the period telephone was out of order and the period for disconnection on 3.3.90 to the date of restoration of the telephone. The District Forum have also mentioned in its order that it had desired by their order dated 10.5.90 to restore the telephone by 26.5.90 if the billed amount of Rs. l,000/- was paid by 17.5.90. The complainant paid the amount as ordered by the District Forum. But the department could not produce any papers to show that the telephone was restored on 26.5.90. The District Forum finding that the telephone of the complainant was not in working condition passed an order on 14.9.90 to the fact that the defects of the complainant''s telephone be rectified and the telephone brought to functioning condition. For non-compliance of these orders, the District Forum passed orders for rebate on rental charges from June'' 89 to October'' 89 when the telephone was admittedly not functioning, also granted rebate on rental for the period of disconnection to the date of restoration. They also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

FROM the above mentioned facts it is clear that till 3.11.89 the telephone of the complainant was not functioning after shifting in June'' 89 and for this period the telephone department itself conceded grant of rebate to the complainant for the rental charges of this period. With regard to the bills dated 21st October'' 89 and 21st December'' 89 the details as furnished by the Telephone Department shows that they were for rental charges and for shifting charges. No objection can, therefore, be taken to pay these bills and the complainant could not have defaulted in their payment if only he knew the details of the bill which he had asked for. The complainant received registered letter dated 12.2.90 from the Accounts Officer-TR making demand of Rs. 1,000/-. Immediately he complained to the Divisional Manager, Telephones against the demand and requested for detailed bill so that he could make payment. This letter was duly received on 26.2.90 but he was not favoured with the details which was requested for and when his telephone was disconnected he again wrote to the Divisional Manager on 14.3.90 (which letter was also duly received) saying that since he had paid the billed amount for the bill dated 21.2.90 he failed to see why his telephone was disconnected. He also said that any bill June'' 89 to November'' 89 was not correct because the telephone was dead in this period. It now appears from the details furnished by the department that the bill was for rental for November'' 89 and December'' 89 for the bill dated 21.10.89 and this bill also included a sum of Rs. 600/- for shifting charges. The bill dated 21.10.89 was for rental charges for January and February'' 89. If only these details were furnished to the complainant he would have paid which he actually did on 17.5.90 in compliance of the District Forum order dated 10.5.90. In compliance of the order of the District Forum to restore the telephone by 26.5.90 if the bill was paid by the complainant by 17.5.90 the Telephone Department have mentioned in their petition that 4.6.90 to District Forum (vide para-22) that orders were passed on 26.5.90 itself and the telephone was restored on that very day (26.5.90) but it was not working on account of the failure of the joint in the Distribution Point. The complainant in this regard averred before the District Forum that the telephone was not restored in compliance of the orders of the District Forum inspite of the receipt dated 17.5.90 having been shown that one Mr. Harish Chandra Prasad, Supervisor, Legal (Cell) because of some personal von-datta against the complainant. He, therefore, requested that veracity of the statements of the Telephone Department that the telephone was not functioning due to a technical fault should be put to strict test. Be that as it may, the facts remains that after disconnection in March, 90 the telephone of the complainant did not function at all inspite of dues paid by him and inspite of the District Forum''s order to restore the telephone after payment of the billed amount. In these circumstances there appears no justification for the rental charges from the date of disconnection to the date of restoration. In this regard it was argued by the learned Advocate for the Telephone Department that the disconnection was for non-payment of bills and, therefore, there is no ground for any rebate in rental charges during the period of disconnection which was on account of the fault of the subscriber- complainant. We would like, however, to observe here that if the Telephone Department had furnished the details to the complainant with regard to bills dated 21.10.89 and 21.12.89 which he had requested and if thereafter he had not paid the bills then only the argument would have been valid. This was not done. This assumes more importance because the subscriber-complainant had alleged that he had not received the original bills. When the telephone was not functioning June and November, 89, the doubt about the genuineness of the bill dated 21.10.89 and 21.12.89 cannot be said to be unfounded and the complainant therefore naturally wanted the details of these bills to be furnished. As such the Telephone Department, therefore, cannot but be said to be deficient in service in this regard. Moreover the bills were paid on the date as desired by the District Forum but the telephone remained non-functional. Whether it was due to non restoration or due to any technical fault as averred by the Telephone Department the facts remains that the telephone remained non-functional for no fault of the complainant. In view of these facts we do not find any reason to interfere with the rebate on rental charges granted by the District Forum for the period between the date of disconnection and restoration of the telephone of the complainant. We also do not see any reason to interfere with the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- granted by the District Forum on account of non-functioning of the telephone of the complainant and deficiency of service by the Telephone Department as discussed above. In the result, therefore, appeal No. 57/91 filed by the Telephone Department is dismissed. As regards the other appeal filed by the complainant about the compensation granted to him he has mentioned in Ground No. 2(1) that a detail account of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20.000/- was claimed for. However, from the complaint petition filed before the District Forum we find that no details have been given in support of the claim of compensation for Rs. 20,000/-. All that has been said in Paragraph-31 of the complaint is that the loss and injury that he had been suffering as a result of the negligence of the Telephone Department may be computed in terms of money on an average of Rs. 100/- per day. In Paragraph 32(3) a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been asked for as compensation for the loss and injury suffered till the date of filing a complaint and in Para 32(4) a further compensation had been claimed @ Rs. 100/- per day till the date when the telephone connection restored. No basis has been given for making the calculations as above. It is, however, seen that for the period between June, 89 to November, 89 the telephone could not function on account of cable fault. This non-functioning, therefore, was on account of technical reasons. But the disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of bill for which details were not furnished inspite of efforts by the complainant and non restoration of the telephone even after the orders of the District Forum and payment of the bill in May ''90 cannot but be said to be a case of negligence and deficiency in service of the Telephone Department for which the District Forum has adjudged a sum of Rs. 1,000/- payable as compensation to the complainant. In the appeal filed by the complainant before us all that the complainant has said is that he suffered from the professional point of view as well as the personal loss because of non-functioning of his telephone and the negligent and callous attitude of the Telephone Department. It is difficult to quantify such an injury. No basis has been furnished for calculating the loss at the rate of rupees one hundred per day and therefore we would not like to interfere with the findings of the learned District Forum, Patna in this regard. Financial relief in the shape of rebate on rental charges has already been given as discussed in preceding paragraphs, for the period the telephone was non-functioning. In the result this Appeal No. 60 of 1991 is also dismissed.

BOTH parties will bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.