PRAYASH PAPERS (PVT.) LTD. vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

THE case of the Complainant in short is that the Respondents issued two false and fabricated bills for 8th & 10th cycles of 1991 for Rs. 33,070/- and Rs. 77,147/- respectively which according to complainant can never take place as since installation, the complainant utilising the telephone within the limits of free calls available against periodical rental and that he is paying the periodical rentals regularly even against those disputed cycles the complainant paid the rental of Rs. 330/- for each cycle and raised disputes about the said false and fabricated bills for 8th and 10th cycle 1991.A series of letters were written by the complainant in this regard for withdrawal and/or cancellation of the said false bills.

SUBSEQUENTLY the respondents issued two bills against those 8th & 10th cycles for Rs. 330/- and Rs. 382/- respectively which were paid @ Rs. 330/- each cycle leaving a balance thereby of Rs. 52/- against 10th cycle to be paid by the complainant and the same is not admitted by the complainant. The complainant contended that even if it be there that could be adjusted against the rebate for 1590 Nos. credit calls standing in the name of the petitioner/complainant. That although subsequent bills for 8th & 10th cycles 1991 were issued for Rs. 330/- and Rs. 382/- the inflated bills for Rs. 33,070/- & Rs. 77,147/- against those cycles were not recalled or cancelled.

The respondent disconnected telephone line on 10.2.92 on the alleged ground of non-payment of Rs. 382/- against 10th cycle 1991 though it has been proved by the petitioner that he paid the admitted amount of Rs. 330/- on 14.10.91 by cash vide G.P.O. Receipt No. 67023 and that apart the petitioner is entitled to value of credit calls of 1590 Nos. amounting to Rs. 1,272/- (approx.) as per letter No. 24 MRC-40/75 dt. 25.3.1991 issued by the Respondent and there was no reason of disconnection of the telephone line on 10.2.92 and that illegal disconnection was also made without any reason and/or notice and the petitioner came to know about said illegal disconnection from computer relay from the exchange as disclosed by its letter No. PPPL/409/ 91-92 dated 11.2.92 annexed as annexure ''A'' to the Affidavit. It was also argued by the complainant that inspite of repeated attempts made since 11.2.92 by giving numerous representations in writing which are filed before the Commission the respondents took no steps to restore the telephone line of the complainant and even orders for restoration passed on 15.7.92, 22.7.92, 5.8.92, 12.8.92, 19.8.92 and lastly on 26.8.92 the respondents did not restore the telephone of the complainant, ultimately the telephone of the complainant has been restored on 27.8.92. The Respondents inspite of sufficient opportunities given have not filed any objection neither they have been able to dislodge the complaints of the complainant inasmuch as no valid explanation is given about illegal disconnection of the telephone line on 10.2.92 of the Complainant.

ADMITTEDLY the complainant has suffered from 10.2.92 to 26.8.92 for no fault on its part and admittedly the bills for Rs. 33,070/- & Rs. 77.147/- against 8th & 10th cycles were issued by the respondents were false in view of issuance of the subsequent bills for Rs. 330/- & Rs. 382/- for 8th & 10th cycles though inflated bills were not specifically cancelled. It is further surprising that after disconnection of the telephone line on 10.2.92 all the periodical bills after disconnection uptil now have been issued and the complainant paid those bills regularly. It was also argued on behalf of the complainant that due to gross negligence of the Respondent, the petitioner has suffered huge business loss for want of contact with the necessary suppliers and buyers of the petitioner as such entitled to substantial damages as claimed by it. It is clear that the said false bills were issued to harass the consumer. We also hold that for gross negligence and carelessness of the respondents the complainant has suffered due to such illegal disconnection of its telephone and inspite of giving a series of representations in the matter, even after intervention by this Commission for restoration of the telephone connection about one and half months were taken by the OPs, to restore the telephone line of the complainant. We also observe that no notice of disconnection was served upon the complainant before taking such action against the complainant and the said actions are clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

THE Ld. Advocate of the complainant referred to certain decisions namely AIR 1980 Kerala Page 201, AIR 1976 SC Page 789, AIR 1980 SC 2117, I (1992) CPJ 47 (NC) & 1992 (1) CPR 684 etc. in support of his claim. We have gone through the said decisions and find substance in support of the case of the complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the Opp. Parties referred to decisions reported in I (1991) CPJ 206 (NC) & I (1991) CPJ 511 where it has been laid down that before claiming any compensation the aggrieved party has to establish the negligence. As negligence is on the face of the record that inspite of no dues on account of telephone bills on the part of the complainant still the Petitioner has suffered disconnection for several months. Therefore, no further proof is necessary to establish the negligence of the Opp. Parties. So the said decision have no application in this case. Similarly decision of Supreme Court based on the Rule 443 of Indian Telegraphs Act is not applicable in the instant case, in view that this is not a case of default in payment as the Opp. Parties have cancelled inflated bills for 8th and 10th cycles i.e. Rs. 38,070/- and 77,147/- respectively and raised bills for Rs. 330/- and Rs. 382/- instead thereof and the complainant has paid Rs. 330/- in each occasion in time and also has in its credit the value of 1590 calls. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay @ Rs. 10/- per day as damages from 10.2.92 upto 26.8.92 in view of restoration of the telephone of the petitioner/complainant on 27.8.92 and also direct the respondents to refund the rental charges for the period of disconnection of the telephones line of the petitioner. There will be no order as to the cost for the proceeding. Order accordingly.