SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TUTICORIN TELECOM vs P. RAMASAMY

THE complainant''s case is that he is a subscriber of telephone with indicator No. 42283. A bill dated 21.11.1996 was sent for Rs. 8,798/-. THE complainant questioned the said bill stating that it was excessive. THE opposite parties replied that they are investigating the matter. But in spite of the complainant''s request not to disconnect the phone it was disconnected on 15.1.1997. THE complainant objected to the disconnection and asked for particulars. Meanwhile, he received a bill dated 21.1.1997 for Rs. 403/-. THE complainant was forced to pay the bill amount of Rs. 8,798/- dated 21.11.1996. THE reconnection was affected on 18.3.1997. THE complainant sent notices 27.2.1997, 20.5.1997, 26.7.1997, 30.7.1997 and 23.9.1997 questioning the excessive bill and requiring particulars. In spite of it the opposite parties have failed to comply with the request nor sent any reply. Thus, there is deficiency in service. While so, the opposite parties have again disconnected the phone on 15.5.1997 without any notice. THE act of disconnection is illegal and unwarranted besides being deficient in service. THE complainant, therefore, prays for damages and to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 8,395/- and a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for non-availability of the phone.

THE opposite parties contended that when the complainant wrote a letter stating that the bill dated 29.11.1996 was excessive, the case was examined with reference to meter readings, it was found that it was no wrong billing or excessive billing. THE opposite parties thereafter advised the complainant by their letter dated 30.12.1996 that on investigation no irregularity was found and requiring him to pay the amount as per the bill. THE complainant was allowed extra time to pay the bill till 15.1.1997. He failed to pay the amount. THErefore, the telephone was disconnected on 16.1.1997. THE complainant applied for reconnection on 27.2.1997. THE telephone was restored on 18.3.1997. THE finding of the investigation had been communicated to the complainant on 4.9.1997. THE telephone authorities had perhaps disconnected the telephone on 15.5.1997 after giving due proper telephonic information. THE complainant approached the opposite parties for reconnection after 2 months. Immediately the opposite parties issued instruction to the Exchange to give connection without any fee. THEre has been no deficiency in service. THE telephone was disconnected on 15.1.1997 for non-payment. THE telephone was disconnected on 15.5.1997 only when the complainant did not and would not part with the payment particulars of bill dated 21.1.1997. Detailed billing facility is not available in Nagalapuram Telephone Exchange. THE opposite parties have not caused any deficiency in service. THEy are not liable to pay any compensation. The lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and further directing the opposite parties to refer the bill dated 21.11.1996 to arbitration.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.

IN this case on hand, there has been two instances of disconnection. The complainant was sent a bill for a sum of Rs. 8,598/- on 21.11.1996. The complainant questioned the same claiming it as excessive and has been repeatedly asking for particulars. But the opposite parties did not care to send any reply but took their own time to send a communication on 4.9.1997. IN the meanwhile, as the complainant had paid the amount under protest, the telephone was connected on 18.3.1997. While so, suddenly, the telephone was again disconnected on 15.5.1997. There are no acceptable reasons given in the version as for the disconnection affected on 15.5.1997. They conveniently stated in page 4 under para 8(f) that the telephone exchange authorities disconnected the telephone on 15.5.1997 only when the complainant did not and would not part with payment particulars of bill dated 21.1.1997. They disconnected the telephone on 15.1.1997. Apparently they have reconnected it on 18.3.1997 after payment only. Therefore, to say that it was again disconnected because particulars of payment of the bill dated 21.1.1997 were not given is a very stale and unacceptable excuse. The opposite parties had all the necessary particulars with them and moreover there is no provision for disconnecting a telephone facility merely because certain particulars were not furnished. It can be only disconnected if the payment is not made. The bill dated 21.1.1997 for Rs. 403/- has been paid by the complainant on 6.2.1997. If really, it had not been paid, definitely they would not have chosen to issue an order of reconnection or affect reconnection. IN all his correspondence the complainant has been specifically mentioning all these facts. But the opposite parties have not cared to send any reply much less to dispute the above contention. After the disconnection was affected in the month of May, they reconnected it only on 12.8.1997. Admittedly, the fault is on their part because they have ordered reconnection without insisting upon reconnecting fee. Thus, there is gross deficiency in service. The Department has been trampling upon the subscribers with their jack boots. They take their own time to reply the complainant when he accuses of excess billing. But when it comes to disconnection, they act very quickly and without basis. If the postal department where the remittance has been made have failed to inform the department of payment, it is a mistake on the part of the postal department which is also a governmental department for which a subscriber cannot be penalized. Therefore, we find no reasons to differ from the view taken by the lower Forum. The lower Forum has taken into consideration the circumstances of the case and have come to a conclusion on acceptable reasons. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Cost Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal dismissed.