RAJA MOHAMMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMU-NICATION DEPARTMENT

THE complainant is the appellant. THE complainant''s Counsel present and ready. Respondents are absent. No representation for the respondents.

THIS is a complaint filed by the complainant for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation, mental agony towards business loss. The telephone with the indicator No. 83742 of Chettinadu, Pallathur comprised in Karaikudi Telecom District was installed in the house of the complainant and he has been using the said service and paying the rent therefor along with the other charges. On the ground that he has not paid the charge, the connection was disrupted on 18.12.1997. Therefore, aggrieved by the disconnection, the complainant had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivaganga.

Since the matter in controversy falls within narrow ambit, it is needless to set out the entire facts in seriatum. It is the admitted case that the bill sent to the complainant dated 1.11.1997 mentions that the last date for payment is on 19.12.1997. This would mean that the subscriber had time till 19.12.1997 to make payment. But while so, the Department had effected disconnection on 18.12.1997 itself. This is highly irregular. The explanation of the Department that the charges are collected by the first week of that month usually from the subscriber, is not borne out by any records nor can prevail on the face of their own bill, which specifies that last date for payment as 19.12.1997. Otherwise the bill becomes a meaningless and a wasteful exercise on the part of the Department. Having given time till 19.12.1997 to make payment to disconnect the same on 18.12.1997 is thoroughly opposite to all canons of justice and equity. In this connection, the Department would also say that since they had received a letter from the sister of the complainant for transfer of the instrument to Bangalore and as they were in the process of attending to it, they could not effect the reconnection immediately though payment along with fine has been made by the complainant. This contention is also, in our opinion, hard to accept. Obviously the connection was only in the name of the complainant from whom alone the charges been collected by the Department regularly. It is, in fact, only to the complainant that the bills have been sent all along. It is not their case that any request was made by the complainant either in writing or orally to transfer the telephone to Bangalore. They have also not produced any record to show that there was any such request made by the complainant''s sister from Bangalore. Therefore, in such circumstances, the excuse put up by the Department that they could not effect reconnection because of the request from the complainant''s sister is but a tale told for the purpose of defence in this proceeding. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no reasonable or probable cause for the Department either to effect disconnection or to lie over the request of the complainant for reconnection. In that context, we are of the view that there is definitely a case of deficiency in service made out amply in this case. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service in relation to the telephone connection and the service thereby offered to the complainant.

THE complainant has not asked for reconnection but has only claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and towards business loss put together. THE said claim is not properly quantified by the complainant by giving the partiulars either in this version or by way of proof affidavit. But, inasmuch as we have held that there is deficiency in service, we are of the view that the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant to some extent, on account of the deficiency in service and the mental agony. In the circumstances, we quantify it at Rs. 5,000/-. We further direct that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid by way of costs on the complaint and in this Appeal, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as costs before this State Commision. Consequently, this Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum, Sivaganga. We direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- totally towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal allowed.