RAJESH KUMAR TALWAR vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES

THIS appeal is directed against order passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana. The complainant is the appellant. His complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

SHORTLY stated the allegations in the complainant are as follows : The complainant/appellant Rajesh Kumar Talwar is the subscriber of telephone No. 30414. He received a bill for Rs. 352/- dated 1.5.1997 and the same was deposited on 16.5.1997. Again a bill for Rs. 362/- was issued which was paid but due to some error the cheque bounced and the telephone was made C.N.P. without giving any information and the same was deposited alongwith additional charges of Rs. 200/- but the telephone was not restored. The prayer in the complaint was regarding the restoration of the connection and compensation for the mental agony and harassment. The written version submitted by the Telecom Department revealed other glaring facts. The telephone of the complainant was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill for Rs. 11,455/- towards telephone No. 403653 which also belongs to the complainant. The stand of the opposite party was that the complainant''s telephone was made disfunctional as per rules.

As has been stated above the District Forum accepted the stand of the Telecom Department and dismissed the complaint.

AT the appellant stage, the case was listed for 26.5.1999. The appeal was partly heard and was adjourned with the directions to the Telecom Department to produce relevant document regarding the person in whose name telephone No. 403653 has been released at Ludhiana. As the case was taken up on 8.7.1999, the Counsel for the Telecom Department submitted the copy of resolution of Board meeting of the VLSO FIBRES Ltd. Company held on 14th Day of October, 1987 which reveals that telephone No. 403653 was in the name of M/s. VLSO FIBRES LTD., Ludhiana. The resolution further declared that Sh. Rajesh Talwar and Mrs. Meena Talwar, two Directors of the Company are authorised to endorse/sign all the papers documents regarding applying the telephone connection with the concerned department. Hence the telephone belonged to the Company. It was installed at their residence in the capacity of Directors. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the telephone No. 30414 was made C.N.P. on account of non-payment of bill pertaining to telephone No. 403653. The resolution of the Company reveals that it does not belong to the complainant.

INDIAN Telegraph Rule 443 has been misinterpreted, in the absence of any documentary proof. This rule provides "that if on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with the 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 word ''subscriber'' has to be significantly noted in the rule. The complainant is in the possession of two telephones. One is in his personal capacity and the other has been provided to him by the Company. Hence the Company becomes the subscriber though in the capacity of the Director, he is using the telephone. Thus telephone of the complainant could not be disconnected for non-payment of bill of the telephone of the complainant. Our view has been fortified by the judgment of National Commission in Distt. Engineer, Telecommunications Department & Ors. v. Roshan Lal Aggarwal, I (1996) CPJ 335 (NC)=1996 (2) CPR 148. We are of the considered view that there has been a clear deficiency in service in disconnecting the telephone of the complainant. It was not in accordance with the Rule 443 and was arbitrary. Any plea or stand taken by the Telecom Department, therefore, has no force. The personal telephone of the Director could not be disconnected for non-payment of arrears of Company''s telephone. In the view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside. We grant to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The telephone department is directed to restore the telephone connection of the complainant forthwith and would pay costs of litigation Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.