DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT vs S.VASUDEVAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.1998 in O.P. No. 28/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

THE opposite parties are the appellants while the respondents are the complainants. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration.

Respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 is the General Secretary, Ooty Taluk Consumer Protection Committee, Udhagamandalam while respondent No. 2/complainant No. 2 is the General Secretary of the Photo Films Factory Employees Association, Udhagamandalam.

THE opposite parties 1 to 3 are respectively Divisional Engineer, Accounts Officer and Junior Telecom Officer of the Telecom Department, Ooty. The Photo Films Employees Association at Udhagamandalam is having a telephone bearing No. 44298. The telephone bill dated 1.2.1997 for Rs. 234/- it appears was not paid in time. Consequently, the said telephone was disconnected on 20.5.1997. According to the 2nd respondent/2nd complainant, the telephone of the Association had been wrongly disconnected by the opposite parties despite the necessary and requisite payment having been effected by the Association. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties would tantamount to deficiency in service.

RESPONDENT No. 1/complainant No. 2 approached 1st respondent/1st complainant for initiation of proceedings against the opposite parties. In such a backdrop and setting, a complaint had been launched against the opposite parties for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that the bill dated 1.2.1997 for Rs. 234/- was not paid in time and consequently arrangements have been made for the disconnection of the telephone of the 2nd respondent/2nd complainant Association which event happened on 20.5.1997. This apart, the Exchange at Ooty is an electronic exchange and the moment the bill for any particular month is not paid in time, the incoming call alone will be received by the subscriber of such telephone and outgoing calls cannot at all be made and the subscriber will be informed about the non-payment of the bill for the particular month automatically. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the disconnection of the telephone of the 2nd respondent/2complainant Employees Association is not justifiable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and consequently directed the opposite parties to pay to the 2nd complainant a total sum of Rs. 4,200/- on various heads.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite parties resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. M.T. Arunan. On service of process, the respondents/complainants remained absent. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. M. Karthikeyan representing learned Counsel Mr. M.T. Arunan appearing for the appellants/opposite parties. We perused the materials placed on record.

Even at the outset, we may point out that this appeal deserves to be allowed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We are sorry to state that the Forum below had not sifted and scanned the materials placed on record by due application of mind and that perhaps is the reason we rather feel that the Forum below had recorded a finding that the disconnection of the telephone of the 2nd complainant/2nd respondent Association is not justifiable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. This will be patent by a cursory glance or glimpse of the bill dated 1.2.1997 for Rs. 234/- marked as Ex. A2 is made. The bill specifically states that the bill amount of Rs. 234/- is required to be paid on or before 7.3.1997 and if there is a delay in payment of the bill, a surcharge of Rs. 10/- will be levied.

IT is not as if the Department for the belated payment is entitled to levy only the surcharge. If there is a default on payment of rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided by the Department, it is also permissible for the Department under Rule 443 of the Telecom Rules for the disconnection of the telephone without any sort of a notice. In the case on hand, it appears that the opposite parties made arrangements for the disconnection of the telephone for the non-payment of the bill under Ex. A2 on or before 7.3.1997. The TRA unit of the telephone department, it appears, had undertaken disconnection process on 7.5.1997 by sending the list of subscribers who had not paid the dues to the Ooty Telephone Exchange for information and necessary action and consequently the telephone of the respondent No. 2/complainant No. 2 Association had been disconnected on 20.5.1997 notwithstanding the fact that the charges for the bill under Ex. A2 had been paid by the 2nd complainant/2nd respondent Association on 9.5.1997. IT appears, there is a lack of communication to the Ooty Telephone Exchange and that perhaps was the reason the telephone of the 2nd respondent/2nd complainant Association had been disconnected on 20.5.1997. The fact that the 2nd respondent/2nd complainant Association paid the dues for the bill under Ex. A2 on 9.5.1997 will not clothe with them the right to say that the disconnection made on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is wrong. The moment the telephone bill of the subscriber for a month is not paid within the due date, it is open to the Department as already indicated to disconnect the telephone under Rule 443 of the Telecom Rules without any notice. Such being the case, it cannot at all be stated that there was any sort of a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such, the order of the Forum below deserves to be set aside. In fine, the appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside and the complaint itself is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.