J.S.RATHEE vs DISTRICT MANAGER (TELECOM) AMBALA CANTT

WHETHER a subscriber''s telephone can be disconnected by the Department for the non-payment of bills without serving a written notice to that effect and without affording a reasonable opportunity to him to either comply with the demand or to show cause against the same? This is the crucial question in this appeal.

THE facts are not at all in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri J.S. Rathee, Director of Prosecution, Haryana has an official telephone connection installed at his residence in Panchkula. According to him the bills for this connection had always been regularly and promptly paid. However, the telephone bill for the month of February 1991 was not received by him at all and to his surprise a cryptic telephonic message was received from the exchange 9.4.1991 to the effect that since the payment of the bill had not been made till date, his telephone would be disconnected for non-payment of the bill. THE complainant forthwith sent an employee to the telephone exchange at Panchkula to collect the bill for its payment. However, the telephone exchange far from furnishing a copy of the alleged bill already dispatched merely handed over an adhoc note lacking any details of the calls made. THE complainant again requested for a detailed bill or a copy of the original on the basis of which alone payment could be made from the Government funds therefor. However, instead of supplying a proper bill the respondent Department forthwith proceeded to disconnect the telephone on the 16th of April, 1991. The complainant thereafter addressed a Demi-official letter to the concerned authorities with regard to the wrong done to him in disconnecting his official residential telephone. However, it was not till the 22nd of April, 1991 after the payment of the alleged bill to the tune of Rs. 1,162/- and also reconnection fee etc. that the telephone was ultimately restored. Aggrieved by the uncalled for the harassment and strain caused to him and also the hindrance in the discharge of his duties, the appellant preferred the complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- in lumpsum and Rs. 100/- per day for the period during which the telephone remained unauthorisedly disconnected.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, the factum of the earlier bills for the relevant telephone having been regularly paid was'' admitted. The stand taken was that a bill dated the 1st of March, 1991 was forwarded and a telephonic reminder was given to the complainant for its payment. On the latter''s request an adhoc bill was supplied to the complainant, but when no payment was made the telephone was disconnected on the 16th of April, 1991.

ON the basis of the evidence adduced and the virtually undisputed facts, the District Forum in its detailed order came to the following conclusion:- "Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that disconnection of the telephone of the complainant on 16.4.1991 was not justified by any stretch of imagination. It was, indeed, an immature act to the inconvenience, annoyance and harassment of the complainant."

Having held as above, the learned District Forum while according relief merely directed the refund of the reconnection fee and a sum of Rs. 200/- only to the complainant as compensation. Dissatisfied with the quantum thereof, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned Counsel for the appellant has highlighted the fact that herein admittedly the telephone connection was an official one and the payments of all the earlier bills had been regularly and promptly made. There was thus not the least ground for any apprehension on the part of the respondents that the dues for a solitary month''s bill (which infact had not been received by the appellant) would remain unpaid. Despite immediate attempts made by the complainant to get a proper duplicate bill on the basis of which alone he could make the payment from the Government funds therefor, the respondents proceeded posthaste and arbitrarily in disconnecting the official telephone and causing grave harassment to the appellant personally and equally causing hindrance in his official work. In this context it was forcefully submitted that the compensation granted was totally meagre and not commensurate with the principle which was sought to be established. On behalf of the respondents no meaningful argument could be advanced in opposition.

IT appears to us that in the present case the somewhat larger issues of general consumer interests of the very large class of telephone subscribers in the country have missed adequate notice. IT would be wastefully labouring the obvious in dilating on the fact that the telephone connection is one of the most essential services today and its disruption may bring in, its wake extreme hardship and inconvenience and may some time cause considerable loss and injury. Considering the pressure and paucity of the telephone connections no subscriber who enjoys the facility would wish to abandon the same. Within our country the power of disconnection of a telephone is indeed a drastic one and necessarily has to be exercised as a matter of last resort. As stands noticed at the outset the crucial question herein is whether apart from the individual facts of the case, the respondents have any blanket power to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber without first serving a written notice upon him and affording him a reasonable opportunity to meet the same. In this context what first meets the eye are the departmental rules and regulations themselves on the point. Though apparently there are official publications to that effect also, yet reference may more conveniently be made to the recent authoritative publication titled as ''Swamy''s Treatise on Telephone Rules." Therein at page 54 Chapter 12 the subject of disconnection of telephones is dealt with. It deserve pointed notice that in view of the statutory rules, guidelines and instructions a disconnection can only be made for specified reasons, and even when these are satisfied, it is expressly provided as follows:- "Notice to be given before disconnection: Whenever the authorities decide to disconnect a telephone of a subscriber, they have to give the subscriber the notice of disconnection, of a period not less than seven days. In case of disconnection due to non-payment of telephone bills, telephonic reminders will be given to subscribers informing them about the pending bills; this will be done well in time so that each subscriber gets a week''s time to pay the outstanding bills."

A plain reading of the aforesaid would leave no manner of doubt that the disconnection of a subscriber''s telephone is not a matter of routine or an automatic consequence. The authority concerned has to take a conscious decision whether to disconnect the same or otherwise. Even where such authority decides to disconnect for a valid cause it has still to give a reasonable notice for not less than seven days. In addition thereto reminders are also envisaged to the subscriber. It deserves to be highlighted that these are not to be in derogation of the imperative duty to first give a notice in writing. It is elementary that a mere telephonic message of which no precise record of despatch or receipt can be kept are no substitute for the mandate of a duly served notice in writing on the subscriber before his valuable right to a telephone connection is to be disrupted.

THE matter does not seem to end here, but is equally well governed by the recent precedent in ''Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong'' AIR 1990 Gauhati 47. THErein apart from rules, on larger principle also, the Division Bench observed as follows:- "Otherwise also, it is well settled law of the land that unless any bill and/or notice and/or demand is served on the person concerned, he cannot be deemed to be in default for nonpayment of such bill or non-performance of anything contemplated by such notice."

Apart from the above the Division Bench specifically and exhaustively addressed itself to the twin question as to when a subscriber can be said to have defaulted in the payment of telephone bills so as to empower the department to disconnect his telephone and whether such a connection can be disconnected without serving any notice on the subscriber informing him of the alleged default or the proposed disconnection In answer to the said question their Lordships refer specifically to Rules 439,442 and 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules and after and exhaustive discussion and interpretation thereof, it was categorically held by them as follows:- "25. We, therefore, hold as follows: (1) Before exercising the drastic power of disconnection of telephone the authority concerned must ensure that the bill and/ or notice is served on a subscriber and the period of 15 days thereafter as provided in the rule has expired and the subscriber has failed to make the payment within such period. (2) If it is so satisfied, then under the scheme of the rules, it has to give a notice to the subscriber about the alleged non-payment and the proposed disconnection thereby giving opportunity to put forward his case, if any, against proposed action."

In the light of the above it is somewhat plain that the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a subscriber''s telephone cannot be disconnected by the Department without first duly serving a written notice to that effect upon him and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the demand or to show cause against the same.

ONCE it is held as above, the appellant seems to have a cast-iron case. It would seem that both the requirements laid by the Division Bench in ''Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones'' (Supra) stand flagrantly violated herein. It has not even been remotely established that the alleged bill dated the 1st of March, 1991 for the month of February was duly served on the appellant in the manner required by law. Indeed there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the appellant''s stand that no bill infact was received at all and the moment the matter came to his notice he forthwith made attempts to get a proper duplicate bill for making the necessary payment. Equally it was not even the case of the respondents that any written notice to the effect that the appellant''s telephone was to be disconnected was served upon him. Obviously no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant either to make the payment of the bill or to show cause against the authenticity of the demand. Both on the basis of the Departmental rules and regulations and the principle laid down in Santokh Singh''s case (Supra) the disconnection of the appellant was wholly unauthorised. That brings us to the question of compensation. On the established facts (which need not be repeated) there seems to be no manner of doubt that the award of a paltry sum of Rs. 200/- and the refund of reconnection fee is wholly inadequate. If the appellant was a private party, we would be inclined to very substantially enhance the same. However, the appellant has commendably chosen to shoulder the burden of these proceedings in order to establish a principle and vindicate the rights of the consumer-subscribers of the telephone services. It was common ground before us that the telephone connection being an official one the compensation awarded has only to move from the one Government Coffer of the respondent Department to another of the Directorate of Prosecution, Haryana. Consequently, we would enhance this compensation only to a modest sum of Rs. 500/- and also affirm the order of the refund of the reconnection fee. Both the amounts are directed to be paid to the appellant within two months from today failing which the provisions of Section 27 would be invoked for compliance.

The appeal is allowed in the terms aforesaid without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed.