MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs OM PRAKASH GUPTA

THIS is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and is directed against order dated 5.6.2000 passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 644/1998 entitled Sh. Om Prakash Gupta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum on the ground that he was subscriber of telephone No. 2240616 installed at his premises No. 73-A, Vikas Marg, Shakar Pur, Delhi. The appellant, however, disconnected the above said telephone of the respondent on 6.8.1998 on the ground that there were huge arrears due against telephone Nos. 2933836, 2932248 and 29308689 whereas the respondent had no connection directly or indirectly with the above said telephone numbers. The complainant had, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to restore the disconnected telephone immediately, as well as to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of business and mental harassment and agony caused due to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and Rs. 5,500/- as cost of litigation. The stand of the appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the telephone Nos. 2933836, 2932248 and 29308689 were being used for business premises by the respondent and being in the name of his son and daughter, the appellant was entitled to disconnect the telephone of the respondent under the provisions of Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record while holding that and there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant, directed the appellant to restore the telephone connection of the respondent immediately and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that there is close relationship and nexus between the respondent and the defaulting subscribers of telephone Nos. 2933836, 2932248 and 29308689 and, therefore, the telephone of the respondent was rightly disconnected under the provisions of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. In support of its contention the appellant has placed on record a copy of duplicate application dated 20.5.1993; a letter written by the respondent to the appellant in respect of telephone No. 2916944 and a photocopy of a visiting card as annexures to the appeal. Insofar as the above contention of the appellant is concerned the same appears to be totally without basis as first of all the telephones in question are installed at different premises altogether i.e., 2240616 is installed at premises No. 73-A, Vikas Marg, Shakar Pur, Delhi whereas the other telephones in respect of which huge arrears are pending are installed at 1131/33, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Furthermore, the documents annexed along with the application in no way support the contention of the appellant that there is nexus between the respondent and the defaulting subscriber and that the telephones are being used by the respondent for personal and business purposes. The duplicate application annexed as Annexure A-1 to the memorandum and grounds of appeal is in respect of proprietorship firm Raj Kumar & Sons. As such the same in no way connects the respondent with the telephone Nos. 2933836, 2932248 and 29308689. Not only that the letter marked as Annexure-II though addressed by the respondent, is in respect of 2916994 and does not in any way reflect any kind of connection between the disputed telephones and the telephone of the respondent, which has been disconnected. Even the visiting card on the basis of which action has been taken by the appellant under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 is the visiting card of Raj Kumar & Sons and the name prominently printed thereon is that of Shri Om Prakash Goel and not Shri Om Prakash Gupta, the respondent. Furthermore, the telephone numbers reflected therein as residential and shop numbers are neither the telephone numbers against which arrears are pending, nor is it that of the respondent i.e., 2240616. As such the contention that the telephones of the defaulting subscribers were being used by the respondent for his personal and business purposes is totally without basis and far-fetched, as the appellant has failed to prove the same. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion the present appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. The above mentioned appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.