GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM vs K.NATARAJAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th day of December, 1999 in O.P. No. 133/99 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kancheepuram.

THE appellants are the opposite parties while the respondent is the complainant. The complainant is a subscriber of Telephone bearing No. 26303, installed in his house at Door No. 71-A, Asthagiri Street, Kancheepuram. He remitted Rs. 325/- on 13.11.1998 towards the bill for November, 1998. He, it is said, also remitted for the second time due to sheer inadvertence an amount of Rs. 335/- on 31.12.1998 for the bill dues of November, 1998. As such, he had over-subscribed to the tune of Rs. 335/-. On 1.1.1999 a bill for Rs. 271/- had been served on him. The amount due under the bill so issued, it is said, was not remitted by him. Consequently his telephone was disconnected on 5.3.1999.

On 9.3.1999 the complainant sent a letter to the Department stating that the disconnection of his telephone was not proper inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 335/- was standing in his credit as having been over-subscribed and it is for the department to adjust the bill amount of Rs. 271/- against the amount of Rs. 335/- standing in his credit. Subsequently, he, it is said, received a bill in March, 1999 for an amount of Rs. 210/-. After the adjustment of the bill amount of Rs. 271/- against the amount of credit namely Rs. 335/-standing in his name, there was a balance of Rs. 64/-. For the remaining amount of Rs. 146/-, he was stated to have sent a cheque to the Department totalling to Rs. 210/- in clearance of the bill for March amounting to Rs. 210/-. He, it appears, has also sent communication to that effect to the Department.

HE would claim that there was time for him to remit the amount till 30.3.1999 and the disconnection of this phone on 5.3.1999 was not proper. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties Telephone Department officials and claiming certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite parties personnel belonging to the Telephone Department in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, ultimately recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and issued directions as below : (i) to restore the telephone connection of Telephone No. 26303 which was disconnected on 5.3.1999 forthwith; (ii) not to collect any charges from the complainant for period during which the telephone was not functioning as a consequence of disconnection; (iii) the Telephone Exchange must have to function at Kancheepuram as it was originally functioning there; (iv) to pay compensation to the complainant quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and suffering undergone by the complainant and to pay the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order or otherwise the complainant is entitled to initiate steps for the recovery of the amount as per the procedure in the Act.

Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite parties/appellants resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. Jo. Jayanathan.

ON service of process, the respondent/complainant did not engage a Counsel of his choice and he appeared in person.

WHEN this matter came up for hearing today, the respondent/complainant was desirous of projecting his hues of views on the matter in person. We allowed him to do so. We also heard the argument of learned Counsel Mr. Jo. Jayanathan appearing for the appellants. On thorough scanning and sifting of the materials placed on record, we are thoroughly satisfied that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting disconnection of the telephone of the complainant. It is not as if the telephone had been disconnected for the non-payment of the relevant bills to be paid by him to the Department. The complainant as a matter of fact remitted an amount of Rs. 325/- towards the dues of the bill for November, 1998. By way of mistake, he also remitted further a sum of Rs. 335/- on 31.12.1998 to the Department for the bill dues of November, 1998. The telephone has been disconnected for the alleged non-payment of the bill dated 1.1.1999 for Rs. 271/-. Since an amount of Rs. 335/- had been standing to the credit of the complainant, to say that the complainant had not paid the bill dated 1.1.1999 for Rs. 271/- cannot at all be acceded to on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Even after the adjustment of the said bill, there will be an excess credit to the extent of Rs. 64/-. The complainant, it appears, sent a cheque for Rs. 146/- towards the bill dues for March, 1999, taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 64/- standing to his credit. The amount for March, 1999 was only Rs. 210/-. Adding the amount of cheque namely Rs. 146/- to the amount of Rs. 64/- standing to his credit, it will come to Rs. 210/-, an amount equal to the amount of bill dues for March, 1999. It is not as if the opposite parties are not made aware of this. The sordid fact is that the complainant sent communication to them appraising these aspects of the matter. In such state of affairs, the act of the opposite parties in disconnecting the telephone of the complainant does not appear to be proper. In this view of the matter, the Forum below recorded a finding that there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and only on such a finding, the Forum below granted reliefs as had been stated earlier. While doing so, we rather feel that the Forum below committed a grievous error in issuing a direction to the opposite parties to have the Telephone Exchange maintaining at Kancheepuram and this sort of relief cannot at all be granted inasmuch as such a relief could not at all fall under Section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). Therefore, such a direction as given by the Forum below deserves to be set aside. We accordingly do so. The Forum below awarded compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant for the mental agony and anguish suffered by him. The compensation so awarded, we rather feel, is reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case warranting no interference at all. We, therefore, confirm such a finding.

The other directions relatable to the restoration of the telephone forthwith and non-collection of any fees or charges for the period during which the telephone was not functioning as a consequence of disconnection are also confirmed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is directed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of our order, or otherwise the complainant will be at liberty to invoke the salient provisions adumbrated under Section 27 of the Act. Orders passed.