MANILAL ZAVERBHAI PATEL vs Telecom District Manager

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 7, 1993 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana (District Forum for short) partly allowing the appellant''s complaint being Complaint No. 139 / 93 anddirecting the respondent to pay to the appellant compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost ofRs.500/-.

FACTS leading to this appeal briefly stated are as follows. The appellant is subscriber of telephone number 2062 at his residence in Mehsana. The appellant is carrying on business in the name of Patel Medical Stores at Mehsana and he is telephone subscriber since many years. According to the appellant, his average bill for his residential telephone used to be between Rs. 300/- to Rs. 325/-. However, he received telephone bill dated 1.5.1992 for Rs. 1,610/- and telephone bill dated 1.7.92 for Rs. 692/- and both the bills according to the appellant were excessive and such excessive bills were due to either defective meter or tampering with the telephone. He, therefore, complained to the respondent about the excessive bills. Thereupon, the respondent informed him to make ad hoc payment of Rs. 510/- till investigation was made. However, the respondent called upon the appellant by letter dated September 14, 1992 to pay the balance of the amount of the aforesaid bill dated 1.5.1992 on or before October 3,1992. The appellant made payment of the balance of the amount of the said bill under protest and filed complaint being Complaint No. 365 of 1992 in the District Forum challenging the aforesaid two bills dated 1.5.1992 and 1.7.1992. The respondent, however, disconnected the appellant''s telephone on October 22, 1992. The appellant, therefore, wrote Registered A.D. letter dated 11.11.92 to the respondent calling upon him to explain as to for what reason his telephone was disconnected. There was no reply to this letter. Therefore, the appellant wrote R.P.A.D. letter dated 26.11.1992 to the respondent pointing out that no reply has been given to his letter dated 11.11.1992. The appellant requested the respondent to give reply to his letter dated 11.11.1992. The appellant made it clear that he was writing the said letter dated 26.11.1992 to give one more opportunity to the respondent to give reply to the letter dated 11.11.1992 before taking legal action. On December 4, 1992, the District Forum partly allowed the appellant''s aforesaid Complaint No. 365 of 1992 and while holding the bill dated 1.7.1992 to be illegal, directed the respondent to revise the bill dated 1.5.1992 and issue it for Rs. 800/- instead of Rs. 1,610/-. Thereafter the appellant again wrote letter dated 21.12.1992 to the respondent pointing out to him that telephone was not reconnected and disconnection of his telephone has resulted in economic loss and harmed his reputation. Thereafter, on January 8, 1993 the appellant''s telephone was reconnected. After reconnection of his telephone, the appellant wrote letter dated 30.1.1993 to the respondent stating to the effect that although his telephone was illegally disconnected, telephone rent was recovered from him for the period during which his telephone remained disconnected.

It is in this background of above facts that the appellant approached the District Forum by way of Complaint No. .139 of 1993 seeking direction against the respondent to pay to him damages or compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for illegally disconnecting his telephone and thereby harming his reputation and causing him economic loss, mental agony etc.

THE respondent resisted the complaint. THE defence of the respondent was as follows : THE appellant complained about bill dated 1.5.1992 for Rs. 1,610/- as being excessive and, therefore, he was asked to make ad hoc payment of Rs. 510/- towards the said bill pending investigation. After due investigation, it was found that meter of the appellant''s telephone and assoi ciated circuits were in order and there was no ground to grant rebate. THE appellant was accordingly informed and asked to pay the balance of the amount of Rs. 1,100/-on or before October 3,1992. THE appellant was given intimation on 28.9.1992, 1.10.1992 and 10.10.1992 regarding the payment to be made by him. THE appellant was also asked on 21.10.92 to intimate whether he had paid the aforesaid bill. However, as the appellant did not give any information and as there was no evidence regarding payment of bill of Rs. 1,800/-, telephone number 2062 was disconnected. According to the respondent, the disconnection was due to the fault of the appellant and no fault on the part of the respondent. THErefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation. THE respondent has further submitted that as directed by the District Forum bill dated 1.5.1992 was corrected and re-issued for Rs. 800/-. Thus, according to the respondent, there was no lapse on its part and disconnection of the appellant''s telephone was due to nonpayment of the bills in time. THE respondent, therefore, prayed for dismiss a of the complaint. The District Forum by its impugned judgment and order has held to the effect that by letter dated 6.1.1993 addressed by Mehsana office to Kalol office of the respondent, it was clearly admitted that on the basis of final bill issued in 14.9.1992, the appellant had paid the amount due under the bill on 3.10.1992 and, therefore, his telephone should be reconnected without recovering any charge for reconnection. The District Forum observed that the defence of the respondent that the appellant had not informed him about the payment of bill made by him inspite of several letters is very weak. There is a stamp dated 3.10.1992 affixed on the final bill on the basis of which payment of Rs. 1,100/- was made and, therefore, the respondent had with him evidence to show that he had made full payment of the bill on 3.10.1992. Inspite of this payment, the appellant''s telephone remained disconnected for more than two and half months and suddenly wisdom dawned upon the officers concerned and telephone was reconnected without recovering reconnection charges. The District Forum further observed that although appellant''s telephone remained disconnected, rent for the period during which it remained disconnected was recovered from the appellant. The District Forum observed that the appellant was owning medical store at Kalol and a Pharmaceutical Factory in GIDC estate. He was President of Chemists'' Association. Thus, the appellant was a man of high status in the society and although he had made payment of the final bill, his telephone was disconnected. According to the District Forum, the action of the officers of the respondent was malafide and they have deprived the appellant of telephone services inspite of payment of the aforesaid bill. The fact that the telephone remained disconnected on account of so-called non-payment of the bill, reputation of the appellant must have been adversely affected and he must have suffered mental agony and stress and economic loss. However, according to the District Forum, there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the District Forum, compensation of Rs. 1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The District Forum has, therefore, by the impugned judgment and order directed the respondent to pay to the appellant compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-.

THE appellant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him has preferred this appeal. The following facts are not disputed. The appellant was given telephone bill dated 1.5.1992 for Rs. 1,610/- and telephone bill dated 1.7.1992 for Rs. 692/-. The appellant had complained to the respondent that both these bills were excessive having regard to the fact that in the past his average telephone bill was between Rs. 300/- and Rs. 325/-. The appellant, while submitting that the bills were excessive, stated to the effect that he suspected that either his telephone meter was defective or that there was tampering with the meter. In view of the complaint made by the appellant, the respondent called upon the appellant to make ad hoc payment of Rs. 510/- towards the said bill pending investigation of his complaint. After investigation the respondent informed the appellant by letter dated 14.9.1992 that meter circuits and telephone line circuits of his telephone werea normally functioning and that meter connected to his telephone had been found to be functioning well an I under those circumstances, it was not possible to grant any rebate in respect of the disputed bill. The appellant was called upon to make arrangement for payment of balance of the amount of Rs. 1,100/- of the disputed bill on or before 3.10.1992. The appellant did make payment of the said bill under protest on 3.10.1992. Official stamp on the bill and the receipt clearly prove that the appellant had paid the balance of amount of Rs. 1,100/- on 3.10.1992. However, his telephone was disconnected on 22.10.1992. The appellant wrote letter dated 11.11.1992 to the respondent inter alia demanding the reason for disconnection of his telephone. Thereafter, the appellant wrote reminders dated 26.11.1992 and 21.12.1992. However, he was not given any reason for disconnection of the telephone. The appellant''s telephone was reconnected on 8.1.1993. Inspite of above admitted facts, respondent had the audacity to take up the plea that the appellant''s telephone was disconnected due to failure on his part to make payment in time. It is pleaded that disconnection was due to fault on the part of the appellant and no fault on the part of the respondent. We fail to see how such a stand could have been taken by the respondent in face of above glaring facts. In the course of arguments, it was emphasised that the respondent had made enquiry as to whether the amount of the disputed bill was paid on 28.9.1992, 1.10.1992 and 10.10.1992. When asked as to how such enquiry was made, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that telephone calls were made at the residence of the appellant. When asked as to who received the telephone calls, the learned Advocate had to admit that there was no reply. Obviously, therefore, so-called enquiry or intimation as is referred to in the written statement on the above dates was meaningless. It was, however, submitted that on 21.10.1992 when enquiry was made on telephone of the appellant one Nitinbhai answered the call and he was asked about the payment of the bill. No information was given by Nitinbhai and, therefore, telephone wasdisconnectedon22.10.1992. No record regarding the above telephone calls is produced before us. Who Nitinbhai is not established by the respondent. We fail to see how the extreme step to disconnect the telephone could have been taken without any written intimation to the appellant. But apart from that the fact about the payment of the bill was within the knowledge of the concerned authority and, therefore, there was no question of making any enquiry on telephone, as stated above. The payment having been made within the knowledge of the respondent, there was absolutely no justification for disconnection of the appellant''s telephone. Therefore, the only inference which can be drawn is that the action of disconnecting the appellant''s telephone was not bona fide.

THE appellant is owning a Medical Store at Kalol and a Pharmaceutical factory in GIDC estate. He is President of Kalol Chemists'' Association for the past 12 years. He is also member of the Executive Committee of the North Gujarat Chemists'' Association. He was enjoying high reputation and social status. THEre is no doubt that information about his telephone having been disconnected on account of non-payment of telephone bill would have adversely affected his reputation and his status. THE appellant is, therefore, entitled to compensation from the respondent. In cases like the present one, there is no exact measure or standard for computation of damages or compensation and it cannot be denied that some guess work is involved. However, having regard to the present day value of rupee, compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the District Forum must be held to be on the lower side. In our opinion, the appellant is entitled to claim compensation of atleast Rs. 5,000/-. Even the amount of Rs. 5,000/- may be considered to be nominal. This amount of compensation may not fully compensate the harm or injury which the appellant has suffered, but it would prove to be an eye opener for the authorities concerned and motivate them to instil efficiency and discipline among their staff. We, therefore, enhance the compensation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.

THERE is no reason why the public exchequer should suffer on account of inefficiency on the part of the persons concerned and, therefore, as rightly directed by the District Forum, we direct the respondent to recover the aforesaid amount and the costs awarded by the District Forum and in appeal from concerned employees or officers. It will be for the respondent to determine who was responsible for negligence, carelessness or inefficiency in disconnecting the appellant''s telephone to fasten the liability for payment of aforesaid amounts. The respondent should also initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned employees or officers for the misconduct. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed . While confirming the order of the District Forum, we enhance the compensation amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 500/- from the respondent. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the respondent within one month from the date of this order. The respondent is further directed to report the compliance with regard to the directions regarding recovery of the amounts and disciplinary action given above. Appeal partly allowed with costs.