S.D.O. (TELEPHONE) vs Balraj Singh

SHOULD a subscriber of a telephone suffer for delayed action/inaction on the part of the Telephone Department or employees of the Post and Telegraph Department in not promptly despatching and delivering the telephone bill to the subscriber by suffering a disconnection of the telephone and monetary loss as consequence. The sorry state of affairs as indicated in this case should be treated as an example for consideration of the authorities in command to suggest and implement necessary guidelines required. At the same time, the subscribers of the telephone in general should be made aware of their rights for getting uninterrupted telephone service for which they are required to pay.

THIS appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of District Forum, Ropar dated October 30, 1996 directing the Telephone Department to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as token compensation-cum-costs of the proceedings apart from granting rebate for the rent for the period August 8,1996 to September 20, 1996 during which the telephone of the subscriber Balraj Singh of Village Kheri, Salabatpur, District Ropar remained illegally disconnected. The telephone was disconnected for non payment of telephone bill of Rs. 115/- which was dated June 11,1996. The said bill was received by the complainant on June 28,1996 and he deposited the amount of the bill with the Post Office on July 3, 1996. Since the telephone was disconnected, the present complaint before the District Forum was filed on August 19,1996, The telephone was restored on September 20,1996 as per stand of the Telephone Department given in its version submitted in response to a notice of the complaint. The telephone was restored when the complainant approached the Telephone Department to know the reasons for its disconnection. The stand of the Telephone Department is that since the amount of the telephone bill was deposited after the due date as mentioned in the telephone bill, it was incumbent upon the subscriber of the telephone to inform the Telephone Department about its payment in order to avoid disconnection. It is further the stand of the Telephone Department that before actual disconnection intimation was given to the father of the complainant as well as to the complainant on August 7 and 8,1996 respectively on the telephone. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum on the basis of the evidence produced came to the conclusion that it was a case of deficiency in rendering service as the telephone was disconnected much after the deposit of the amount of the bill. The District Forum, thus, granted the relief as stated above. It may be observed that the amount of Rs.115/- included Rs. 10/- for payment after the due date i.e. before the due date the sum payable was Rs. 105/-. The due date of the bill was June 26,1996 as per instructions to the subscribers printed on the bill itself. The postal stamp of delivery of the bill Ex. A-6 (photocopy) indicates mat the bill was delivered to the subscriber on June 28,1996. The date of posting of the bill as per separate postal stamp indicates that it was posted on June- 28, 1996. Thus, it would appear that though the bill was dated June 11, 1996, it was actually posted on June 28,1996 and was delivered on the same day. Assuming for the sake of argument that the bill was posted on June 11,1996, there was inordinate delay in delivering the same as the bill was delivered on June 28, 1996. In that eventuality the fault would lie with the Post and Telegraph Department since both the departments are working hand in gloves under Union of India. As per instructions to the subscribers as also argued by learned Counsel for the Telephone Department if the bill is not paid by the due date the bill should be treated as a notice under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules entitling the Telephone Department to disconnect the telephone for nonpayment of the bill. According to the Counsel for the Telephone Department, no separate notice under Rule 443 (supra) is required to be issued. It is in the set of the circumstances as narrated above that it is for consideration as to whether the stand of the Telephone Department in the version submitted or as put forth by the Counsel for the Telephone Department can be accepted. It may be observed that laws, statutes or rules framed thereunder are enacted and made for the benefit of the people, a concept of democracy. If the State Government/its employees intentionally or unintentionally either violate such rules or instructions or for whatsoever reasons omit to follow such instructions by inaction or delayed action, the people are not to suffer for the same and if for such negligent acts of the employees of the department, people are made to suffer they must be compensated. To meet such eventualities, came to the rescue of the people the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Though the telephone bill Ex. A-6 is dated June 11, 1996, the payment could not be made before June 26,1996 as the bill was delivered to the subscriber by employees of the Post and Telegraph Department on June 28, 1996. The general presumption that all actions under the rules were taken in accordance therewith cannot be raised in the present case and stands rebutted. Either after preparation the telephone bill remained in the office of the Telephone Department or if handed over to the Post and Telegraph Department, it remained there. Ultimately it was delivered on June 28,1996. The complainant/subscriber of the telephone had no occasion to comply with the instructions for payment of the bill aforesaid before the due date i.e. June 26,1996. Thus, at least in the present case it cannot be said that without issuing a separate notice under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules the telephone of the complainant could be disconnected. The principle of natural justice is embodied in Rule 443 (supra) that nobody should be made to suffer unheard and seven days'' notice is required to be served upon the subscriber before disconnection of the telephone for non payment of the bill. Thus present is a clear case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Telephone Department in disconnecting the telephone of the complainant without serving notice as required under Rule 443 of Indian Telegraphs Rules.

The matter can be examined from another angle. The telephone of the complainant was disconnected on August 8,1996 and much prior thereto the amount of the bill had already been deposited on July 3,1996. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Telephone Department is that it was incumbent upon the subscriber to separately intimate the Telephone Exchange about deposit of the amount of the bill if the same was made after the due date. It is in this context that reference has been made to the affidavit of the Junior Engineer, Telephones that intimation was given to the father of the subscriber and the subscriber on August 7 and 8,1996 respectively on the telephone. The District Forum rightly declined to accept the version of the Telephone Department as no records were produced giving intimation to the subscriber or his father on the telephone. Simple assertion in the affidavit of compliance of the rules in that respect cannot be accepted, more so in the present case when work of the Telephone Department and the Post and Telegraph Department of that particular region has been demonstrated to be not upon the mark as discussed above. Apart from that, before disconnection of the telephone on a particular date it was incumbent to verify from the records as to whether the amount of the bill had been paid in the meanwhile or not. No material has been produced by the Telephone Department as to when the intimation of deposit of telephone bill on July 3,1996 was received in the Telephone Department. The telephone, it may be observed, was restored as per stand of the Telephone Department when the complainant had moved an application (Annexure R-3) which is dated September 3, 1996 to know the cause of disconnection. It would indicate that intimation from the Post Office about the deposit of the telephone bill had been received by the Telephone Department. As to when such intimation was received, there is no mention either in the affidavit or in the written statement filed on behalf of the Telephone Department. It may be observed that the Telephone Department initially issued a demand notice for Rs. 100/- as reconnection charges which was subsequently withdrawn. That would also indicate the action of the department in disconnecting the telephone was taken to be illegal. Negligence on the part of the employees of the Telephone Department in effecting disconnection of the telephone on August 8, 1996 of the complainant much after deposit of the disputed bill amount is writ large.

LEARNED Counsel for the Telephone Department has argued that grant of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for non-functioning of the telephone for one month and 12 days is highly excessive. We find no merit in this contention. Telephone is a necessity of life in this era, and is not a show piece either for the drawing room or for the commercial establishments or industries. As per stand of the complainant, he is running a business of Finance Company at Ropar. His relatives are residing abroad and he used to receive messages in that connection on the telephone. In the absence of any material produced by the Telephone Department, the assertion of the complainant is well founded. The contention of Counsel for the department that the telephone was not in much use as a telephone bill would indicate cannot be accepted as the number of calls received are not recorded by the Telephone Exchange. When there is no specific material to assess actual loss suffered by the complainant as contemplated under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the FORA is required to fix just and reasonable compensation taking into consideration the facts of each case which can be allowed, and the grant of Rs. 5,000/- including cost as compensation in the present case, by the District Forum is not at all highly excessive to call for interference in this appeal. It is otherwise just and reasonable.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.