PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD. vs Department of telecommunications

THE appellant-complainant, Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chandigarh, filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh against the District Manager, Telephones, Chandigarh, and others on the ground that on the resignation of their Chief Manager (Finance) in December, 1990 they had requested the respondents to shift the telephone No. 32802 from H. No. 1299, Sector 33C, Chandigarh, to House No. 2132, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. THEre was delay in the shifting, resulting in excessive bills. THE District Forum, Chandigarh accepted the plea regarding delay in shifting and awarded some compensation. However, the complainant, Milkfed was not satisfied with the said order and has preferred the present appeal.

THE contention of the appellant is that Telephone No. 32802 was installed at the residence of Mr. B.L. Mahajan, their Chief Manager (Finance) i.e., No. 1299, Sector 33C, Chandigarh, under the direction of Milkfed and on account of his resignation a request was made to the respondents to shift it to H.No. 2132, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. Through another letter, the department asked for the shifting of this telephone to H. No. 3232, Sector 22D, Chandigarh, instead of H. No. 2132, Sector 22D, Chandigarh. No action was taken by the respondents on the request. As a consequence of functioning of the new exchange in Sector 34 the digit 5 was prefixed to the existing telephone number in January, 1991. It continued to be functioning at the old premises which were no longer under the control of the appellant. Another request was made on 15th May, 1991 to shift this telephone to the Industrial Area, Chandigarh, at the residence of Shri B.M.L. Garg, General Manager (HQ) of the appellant organisation. A new telephone bearing No. 22568 was installed in the Industrial Area at the premises of the aforesaid officer. THE Milkfed paid all the bills pertaining to Telephone No. 22568 and it was on 18th July, 1991 that another request was made to the respondent No. 2 to shift the telephone from Industrial Area, Chandigarh, to H. No. 2290, Sector 35C, Chandigarh. THE new telephone allotted this time too was No. 532802 i.e., the telephone which continued to be in the old premises of the then Manager (Finance) of the Milkfed who was no longer an employee of the Milkfed after December, 1990. In pursuance of the request dated 18.7.91 telephone started working in the said premises w.e.f. 16.8.91 in place of Telephone No. 22568 which was installed at the Industrial Area, Chandigarh at the residence of General Manager (HQ) of the said organisation. Somehow on 21st of August, 1991 this telephone was disconnected and the respondents sent bills dated 11.6.91 for Rs. 9,494/- and the bill dated 11th August, 1991 for Rs. 2,519/-in respect of Telephone No. 532802 when the said Telephone No. 532802 was not working with the appellant. The appellant has brought in his affidavit dated 11.10.93 in support of his contention and also annexed the copies of the bills and the copies of the letter exchanged between the parties on this subject. A perusal of the Annexures C 2 and C 3 issued from the office of the respondents shows that intimation with regard to the disconnection of the telephone had been received by the respondents and this fact has nowhere been controverted. A perusal of Annexures C 7 and C 9 shows that the appellant was billed erroneously for the period prior to 15.8.91 with regard to Telephone No. 532802 when the appellant had already requested for the shifting of the telephone and in fact the telephone was shifted with undue delay in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh and thereafter a new connection with the same old number was provided to the appellant on 16.8.91. The billing of the appellant for a period which he had not used the telephone for itself or any of its bona fide officer, is not justified. The delay on the part of the respondents in disconnecting the telephone within a reasonable period was a patent deficiency and negligence and they cannot fasten the appellant for this omission and negligence. In fact they are even charging the appellant for the same telephone twice when it was in existence in the Industrial Area for which he is already making the payment and when it was continued to be unauthorisedly in the premises which were not in occupation of the appellant or his bona fide officer as far as period for 30.6.91 to 16.8.91 is concerned. We, therefore, find that the District Forum has erred in ignoring this part of the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, we accept the appeal and hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents with regard to bill Annexure C9 totalling Rs. 13,099/-. The respondents are directed to refund this amount to the appellant, together with interest@18%p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The respondents are also liable to pay costs Rs. 2,000/-.

Announced. Copies of orders be supplied to the parties free of cost. Appeal allowed with costs.