SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR), OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM. vs K.Srinivasa Rao

WE heard the learned Counsels on both sides. WE do not find that this appeal ought to have been filed by the opposite party in CD No. 81/1998 questioning the order of the WEst Godavari District Forum therein dated 16.6.1999 directing restoration of the two telephones of the complainant, which were disconnected because the complainant''s son did not pay the dues payable in respect of S.T.D.P.T. in his name, and imposing very nominal damages of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- even though the two telephones were under disconnection from August and September, 1998 i.e. for nearly nine to ten months. The complainant is the respondent before us. Fortunately, he did not prefer any appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

COUNSEL for the appellant does not dispute that the telephones bearing Nos. 73917 and 73391 belong to the respondent and that he does not have anything to do with the S.T.D.P.T. No. 5077 taken by his son, the defaulter. The case of the appellant before the District Forum was that, S.T.D.P.T. No. 5077 was in the same premises as the telephones bearing Nos. 73917 and 73391 and that the son was living with the father and that therefore, the father was under an obligation to clear the dues of his son - this is reverse of the pious obligation, even assuming that they continued as a joint Hindu family. But the respondent stoutly contended that his son was not living with him and that he was living separately. When the matter came up for hearing before the District Forum, the appellant was not represented. No material was placed by the appellant before the District Forum to establish in any way that the respondent had anything to do with the STDPT No. 5077 or that he was in any way liable for the payment of dues of his son. The District Forum, relying on the decision of the Kerala State Commission in M. Buhari v. The General Manager, Telecom District Officer & Ors., III (1998) CPJ 3=1998 (3) CPR 557, held that the complainant could not be visited by the displeasure of the appellant for not clearing the dues of his son and that the appellant was not right in disconnecting the complainant''s telephones. In that view of the matter the Forum directed the appellant to restore connection to the two telephones and awarded only a very nominal damages of Rs. 1,000/-. The Kerala State Commission relied on the decisions of the Kerala High Court in T. Abraham v. The Telephone District Manager, Kollam & Anr., 1996 (2) K.L.T. 241, wherein it was held that the telephone of a subscriber could not be disconnected for dues in respect of the telephone of his daughter in-law, and of the Bombay High Court in Dr. B.V. Manek v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., AIR 1996 Bombay 3, wherein it was held that the department could not disconnect the telephone of a relative of the subscriber for dues of such subscriber. We had occasion to consider a similar question in Telecom District Manager, Khammam v. Challa Rama Chandraiah, 1998 ALD (CONSUMER) 41. It is unfortunate that the District Forum did not refer to this order of ours which squarely covers the question involved. In that case also the question was whether the appellants, who were the authorities of the Telecom Department, could disconnect the telephone of the father for non-payment of dues in respect of the telephone of the son. We held that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Pridhvi Kumar v. The General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad (supra), was against the Telecom Department. That decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad v. Y. Pridhvi Kumar (supra). We also referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Dr. B.V. Manek v. Mahanagar Telephone Ltd. (supra) and of the Kerala High Court in T. Abraham v. The Telephone District Manager, Kollam & Anr. (supra), and also of the Karnataka High Court in K. Manjulatha v. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, I (1997) CPJ 533. Our decision in Challa Ramachandraiah (supra), fully covers the facts of the present case. In the present case the telephones were disconnected in August and September, 1998 and our decision in Challa Ramachandraiah was of 21.1.1998. The appellant had no excuse whatsoever for disconnecting the telephones of the respondent in the teeth of this decision. As we already observed, he ought to have never preferred this appeal. We find that the respondent has not been given connection for the two telephones till today. In the circumstances we have to dismiss this appeal with exemplary costs of Rs. 3,000/- considering that both the telephones were not connected even after the order of the District Forum dated 16.6.1999 till now i.e. for more than four months. We also direct that the appellant shall not collect any rentals from the date of disconnections till the date of restoration and shall also not charge any re-connection charges. The restoration shall be effected within two weeks from today. The learned Counsel shall intimate the appellant of this order for immediate compliance. Already a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited by the appellant before this Commission pursuant to our orders dated 23.9.1999 made in F.A. IA. No. 1440/1999. At that time we were given to understand that the telephones would be restored. In the circumstances, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks from today by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao, payable at Narsapur in West Godavari District. The Demand Draft shall be deposited before this Commission. Post on 23.11.1999 for reporting compliance.

The sum of Rs. 2,000/- already deposited by way of a Pay Order of Nampally Branch of Andhra Bank bearing No. 602395 dated 14.10.1999 for Rs. 2,000/- drawn in favour of the Registrar, A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad shall be kept in deposit by the Registrar and it is open to the respondent to file a cheque petition for withdrawing the same. Appeal dismissed with costs.