MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs V.K. Ahuja

PETITIONER in both the revision petitions was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondents, namely, Shri V.K. Ahuja and Smt. Vijaya Ahuja had filed two separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

SINCE these two complaints are inter -related and have a direct bearing with each other, we are dealing with these revision petitions and go on to dispose them off by a common order like the District Forum and State Commission.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri V.K. Ahuja (respondent in RP No. 2597/ 2005) had a telephone connection bearing No. 504050. The dispute was with regard to the bills raised during the life of the connection as well as after this connection was disconnected. The petitioner raised bills from time -to -time when they were not paid, the telephone connection was disconnected. When this outstanding amount was not being paid by the respondent, telephone connection bearing No. 5415411, in the name of Mrs. Vijaya Ahuja (respondent in RP No. 2598 of 2005) was disconnected. It is in these circumstances two separate complaints were filed by the respondents /complainants before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties passed the following order: "We, therefore, quash the following bills issued by the respondent against the complainant - Bill Date Amount 1.11.1992 6,544 2.1.1993 2,950 1.9.1993 7,151 1.11.1993 33,934 1.1.1994 9,885 1.3.1994 1,589

We direct the respondent to issue fresh bills on the basis of average of the bills issued to the complainant w.e.f., 1st January, 1991 to September, 1992. Any excess amount paid by the complainant shall be refunded back. The telephone of the complainant shall be restored immediately, if the amount to be recovered as per above mentioned instruction, has been paid or is paid by the complainant. As regards telephone No. 5415411 (case No. 675/2000) in the name of Mrs. Vijaya Ahuja, it shall not be disconnected as the outstanding amount against Mr. V.K. Ahuja, due to which this telephone had been disconnected, has been found to be illegal and has been quashed. The respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs. 2,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000.

The respondent shall comply with the above mentioned order within a month failing which proceedings under Section 27of the CPA may be initiated." The petitioner filed two separate Appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeals, hence these revision petitions before us.

ON the date of hearing fixed in these cases on 14.1.2009, the petitioner represented through an employee of the petitioner and the respondents were represented through Mr. V.K. Ahuja. We closed the case for orders. Revision Petition No. 2597 / 2005

THE main ground on which this revision petition has been filed, is that this complaint was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the simple reason that the telephone connection in respect of telephone No. 504050 was disconnected on 13.8.1993 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the question of limitation was raised in the written version but it has not been dealt with by both the lower Fora.

WE have seen the order of the District Forum and found that even though this plea of limitation has been recorded by the District Forum, but there is no finding returned on this point by the District Forum. The State Commission has dealt with this question of limitation in following terms: "The Preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the appeal was time barred does not hold water as the respondent started receiving such highly inflated bills from November 1992 onwards and some of the bills were 10 times than the bills being received by him in the past. Respondent had been meeting the officials of the appellant for years together and had been writing letters after letters but no action was taken."

NOTHING has been shown to us by the respondent that what was done by him for almost 7 years from the date of disconnection to the date of filing the complaint. Our order -sheet dated 27.7.2006 records, "....respondent says that he had been writing letters to the authorities and personally meeting them and copies of those were filed before the District Forum..".

IT is by now well settled law, that no amount of correspondence or meetings, will extend the period of limitation. In our view, the District Forum erred in not dealing with this question and State Commission dealt in too perfunctorily. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as they appear on record, this complaint was clearly barred by limitation as provided under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission, which are set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed. Revision Petition No. 2598 of 2005

BASIC facts are not in dispute that there was nothing outstanding against the telephone connection No. 5415411 in the name of Smt. Vijaya Ahuja. For this, the plea taken by the Petitioner is that, MTNL is within limits of law to disconnect the telephone connection in the same premises even when it is in the name of other person, living in the same premises, thus providing facility of using the telephone to a defaulter. For this, the petitioner relies upon Rule 443 of the India Telegraph Rules, which reads as follows: "Default of payment - if on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephone or telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time -to -time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time -to -time."

IN support of his this contention, the petitioner relies upon following judgments of Hon''ble Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court: "(i) WPC No. 6342/1998 titled as Shri Rajiv Gosain v. MTNL.

(ii) WPC No. 531/1999 titled as Mr. Jaskaran Singh v. MTNL.

(iii) WPC No. 1693/1996 titled as Shri Sukhdayal Narula v. UOI and MTNL.

(iv) AIR 1990 Guj. 85

(v) WPC No. 5954/1999 titled as Mr. Surjit Singh v. MTNL."

(vi) WPC No. 5117/1994 titled as Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. MTNL."

WE have very carefully gone through the material on record and we are of the view that the petitioner has the powers to disconnect the other telephone existing in the same premises even though in someone else''s name under Section 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules.

DESPITE this provision, we like to observe that in para 4 of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant it is specifically mentioned that "on 4.4.2000 my telephone connection No. 5415411was again disconnected without prior notice...". We see no direct reply to this in the written version filed by the petitioner before the State Commission in reply to this para 4. However, in para 2 of the written version filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, there is a reference (page 30 of the paper -book) in which it is stated, "at last a registered notice dated 20.2.2000 was sent to the complainant for her telephone No. 5415411 telephone No. 504050. A copy of the said notice is annexed herewith. But still no reply was received from the complainant, as such the telephone No. 5415411 in the name of the complainant had to be sent for disconnection to the concerned Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules."

WE have very carefully gone through the material on record. Despite pendancy of the case for almost 3 years by now, we find that no such notice has been placed on record in support of the contention that notice was sent. Law laid down by the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indravadan Pranlal Shah v. General Manager, Ahmedabad Telephones District Kharpur and Anr., AIR 1990 Guj. 85, produced before us by the petitioner, it clearly emerges, that notice of disconnection to subscriber, stating, that his individual telephone connection will be disconnected in case of dues of the other telephone are not paid, has to be issued. At the cost of repetition, we need to observe that no proof of any such notice having been issued to Respondent/complainant in this Revision Petition, has been filed or complainant in this Revision Petition, has been filed or brought on record, in the absence of which we are constrained to observe that no notice was issued and disconnection of telephone No. 5415411 cannot be called to be in order. In the light of above, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.

BOTH the revision petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.