S.D.O. TELEPHONES vs SURINDER NARANG

IN view of the solitary argument raised on behalf of the appellant-Department, this appeal stands concluded against them by the considered order of this Commission in First Appeal No. 64 of 1991 Shri J.S. Rathee v. The District Manager (Telecom) Ambala Cantt. & Ors. decided on February 26, 1992. It therefore suffices to notice the facts with the utmost brevity.

THE complainant-respondent who is the subscriber of telephone No. 3242 at Karnal had primarily raised three basic grievances in his complaint. Firstly that the telephone aforesaid which originally stood in the name of his deceased-father Shri Shamsher Singh Narang had not been changed to the name of the complainant (who happens to be the son of the deceased subscriber) since March 26,1983. Secondly that the appellant department had raised a bill dated January 11, 1991 for Rs. 6129/- which was wholly excessive and did not reflect the actual use of the telephone in question. Thirdly that the telephone connection had been disconnected without giving any written notice to the consumer-complainant and without waiting for the complainant to deposit Rs. 6129/- in accordance with the bifurcated bill. On notice being issued to the appellant department it took various defences in reply, to which detailed reference now becomes unnecessary. The District Forum on a consideration thereof and the evidence on the record accorded relief in the following terms :- "xx xx xx xx Hence we direct the consumer complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2829/- as per Memo. No. TR/EM/KRL 3242/4 dated 18.4.91 issued to him by the TDM Karnal within a week from today and we further direct the respondents to re-connect Telephone No. KRL 3242 on deposit of the amount of Rs. 2829/- against Bill dated 18.4.1991 within a week from the date of the deposit. We also direct that the consumer complainant shall not be liable to pay rental of the telephone in question for the period it remained disconnected because prima-facie the disconnection of the telephone by the respondent without written notice, is not legal."

Mr. Arun Walia, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised a solitary contention. It was argued that under Rule 443, no written notice to the telephone subscriber is at all necessary in the case of dis-conncction for non-payment of telephone charges. It was the case that the District Forum had erred in viewing the matter under Rule 421 and therefore, the direction to re-connect the telephone basically on the ground of lack of notice was unwarranted in law.

WHAT first deserves highlighting in the context of the aforesaid contention is the fact that no reliance WHATsoever on Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules was at all placed either in the pleadings or apparently in the course of arguments before the District Forum. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants dated December 28, 1991 Rule 443 is only conspicuous by its absence and there is not a hint of reference thereto. Equally in the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellants no support was sought at all from the said provision. The order of the District Forum would indicate that the appellants though represented by Counsel did not raise any such argument even remotely before it. Consequently it seems someWHAT unfair for the appellants to take the respondent-consumer by surprise by now relying on a provision which was not even referred to at the basic stage of the trial and to meet a case which was not at all set-up by the appellants at that stage. Apart from the above, it bears repetition that herein the matter stands concluded against the appellants by the order in J.S. Rathee v. The District Manager (Telecom), Ambala & Ors, II (1992) CPJ 564 (supra). Therein an identical question had come up for consideration. After considering the matter in some depth both on principle and precedent and placing firm reliance on the Division Bench judgment in ''Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong'' AIR 1990 Gau. 47, this Commission had concluded as follows :- "In the light of the above it is somewhat plain that the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a subscriber''s telephone, cannot be disconnected by the Department without first duly serving a written notice to that effect upon him and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the demand or to show cause against the same."

FACED with the somewhat uphill task of overcoming the aforequoted ratio against him Mr. Walia had contended that the provisions of Rule 443 had not come in for specific and particular consideration in the aforesaid order. This is not quite true because the basic precedent of ''Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong (supra) had made a specific reference, to Rules 421, 442 and 443 and thereafter came to the conclusion which stands quoted in the order of this Commission. The submission of Mr. Walia on this ground therefore cannot possibly succeed. Lastly what appears to us as an argument of desperation it was contended on behalf of the appellants that we should reconsider the ratio decidendi in Shri J.S. Rathee''s case (supra). Mr. Walia took us through the detailed provisions of Rule 443 and contended that this was the only provision applicable. The correctness of that view was sought to be challenged on the basis of the language of Rule 443. we are afraid that herein again Mr. Walia is on a wry unsure ground. The question whether the State Commission can reconsider or review its earlier decisions on pure questions of law had recently come up for pointed notice in ''S.D.O. A.E.E. City Division, Hissar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hissar, I (1992) CPJ 127. Therein, after a consideration of the issue on both principle and precedent it was held as under :- "To finally conclude in the light of the aforesaid discussion the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that the State Commission must be bound by its own previous decisions on pure questions of law."

In view of the above, we regret our inability to re-consider the ratio in J.S. Rathee''s case (supra) above. No other contention has been raised. The appeal therefore must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which is assessed at a sum of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.