GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, FARIDABAD vs D.K.SINGH

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated May 27, 1993 massed by the State Commission, Haryana, dismissing a revision filed before it by the General Manager, Telephones, Faridabad challenging an order passed against him by the District Forum, Faridabad under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

AFTER our having gone through the records relating to the proceedings before the District Forum as well as the State Commission, we are clearly of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Forum was vitiated by material irregularity and was devoid of jurisdiction and when the said order had been brought to the notice of the State Commission, there was a duty vested in the state Commission to exercise its suo moto re-visional power and set it aside. The District. Forum had passed an interlocutory order dated November 6,1992 immediately after receipt by it of the complaint petition directing that the complainant''s telephone connection should be forthwith restored until further orders. On the ground that no reply statement was filed by the department by February 12, 1993, which was the date fixed for filing of the reply, the District Forum ultimately passed an order dated April 8, 1993 stating that" "It stands established that the respondents failed to discharge their statutory duty of submitting the telephone bills regularly to the petitioner and disconnected his telephone all of a sudden without any advance notice to him, thus causing him a lot of harassment. In the above circumstances, we direct that telephone connection be restored forthwith and the respondents should submit the telephone bills regularly. In case it is found feasible to disconnect the telephone an advance registered notice of at least a month shall be given to the consumer to show-cause before doing so. It is a fit case where the complainant should be compensated suitably for the undue harassment caused to him. We, therefore, impose Rs. 5,000/- as costs on the respondents to be paid within one month from the date of this order to be borne by the telephone department."

It is seen from the records before us that the telephone of the complainant had been disconnected originally on November 2, 1992 for non-payment of a bill dated June 1, 1992 after the subscriber was reminded twice about his default in paying the bill. Because of the interim order passed by the District Forum on November 6, 1992, the department restored the telephone connection of the complainant on that same day. Subsequently, the complainant again commItted default by non-payment of another bill dated December 1,1992. The Complainant had no case that the said bill dated October 1,1992 had not been duly served on him. His contention was that since the case filed by him was pending before the District Forum wherein he had challenged the earlier bill dated June 1,1992 as excessive and the restoration of the telephone connection had been directed by the District Forum, he was not bounds to pay the succeeding bill dated October 1, 199ZThis was the state of affairs when the matter was finally heard and decided ex-parte by the State Commission.

WE do not find it possible to agree with the observations of the District Forum which we have extracted above. From the undisputed facts emerging from the records, it is clearly seen that the bills in question had been served on the complainant. The view taken by the Forums below that even after due service of bills a separate notice of disconnection should be issued to the telephone subscriber calling upon him to pay the bill and it is only in the event of his non-complying with said demand within a period of one month from issue of such notice, the disconnection is clearly contrary to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. In various rulings rendered by this Commission and an order dated September 9, 1994 passed by this Commission in R.P. No, 593 of 1993, this Commission has differed with respect from the view expressed by the Guwahati High Court reported in AIR (1990) Guwahati page 47 to the effect that it is mandatory in law that a notice should be given to a subscriber of a telephone before his telephone connection is disconnected on the ground of non-payment of dues. This Commission has held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules specifically entitled the department to disconnect the telephone without any notice the bill has been served and there has been a default in payment of such bill. Following those rulings, we hold that the directions issued to the Telephone Department by the State Commission in its impugned order are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and they are hereby set aside. We hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the department in disconnecting of the telephone of the complainant on the ground of non-payment of the bill issued to him. The District Forum had acted wholly without any jurisdiction or legal warrant in directing Revision Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation to the complainant. The said direction is also hereby set aside.

IT is also to be observed that the ex-parte interim order passed by the District Forum, Faridabad directing the appellant herein to forthwith restore the telephone connection of the complainant pending the adjudication of the complainant petition was also wholly without jurisdiction in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanely Mutual Fund v. Katick Das, II (1994) CPJ 7(S.C). The Revision Petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent herein is hereby dismissed.