SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELEPHONES vs P.S. JOSEPH

THE complainant received a bill on 19.9.1996 for Rs. 2,100/- wherein the rent was claimed for the period from 31.3.1995 to 31.8.1996 whereas the telephone was installed only on 16.6.1995. Out of the sum of Rs. 8,000/- paid by the complainant under the OYT Scheme, the bill amount of Rs. 2,100/- was adjusted leaving the credit balance of Rs. 6,020/-. THE complainant was not served with any notice of demand. But, however, a reminder was sent to the complainant to make a payment of Rs. 456/- and requiring the complainant to make payment before 15.4.1997. THE complainant paid the amount accordingly but despite the same, the service was disconnected. THErefore, the complainant has sought for reconnection, render proper and true account for bills submitted to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost.

THE opposite party contended that the allegation that the telephone was installed on 16.6.1995 is false. THE telephone was installed on 31.3.1995 itself and the bill was claimed for the period from 31.3.1995 to 31.8.1996. It is true that the sum of Rs. 2,100/- was adjusted from the deposit. After verification, it was found a sum of Rs. 456/- was still due. A reminder was sent requiring him to pay on or before 7.4.1997. THE allegation that the reminder was received by the complainant only on 8.4.1997 is not true. It is true that the complainant met the J.E., Telephones, Pandalur and he issued a demand note directing the complainant to make payment on or before 15.4.1997. Since the complainant has not intimated the opposite party about the alleged payment of Rs. 456/-, the telephone was disconnected on 16.4.1997. THE complainant has not asked for reconnection for more than six months. THEre is no deficiency in service. The Lower Forum directed the opposite party to grant connection without charging any amount and further directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and obtained a phone connection. Indicator No. 67669 was allotted to him and he was provided with phone on 16.6.1995. But in the bill issued for the period from 31.3.1995 to 31.8.1996, rent was claimed and a sum of Rs. 2,100/- being the amount was adjusted in the deposit of Rs. 8,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 6,020/-. Then, a reminder was sent on 1.4.1997 claiming that there was a balance of Rs. 456/- giving the due date of 7.4.1997. It is admitted that the complainant met the J.E., Telephones, Pandalur in person and sought clarification about the sum of Rs. 456/- and the J.E. directed him to pay the amount on or before 15.4.1997. The complainant paid the amount in the Post Office at Pandalur on 15.4.1997 itself. But, without verifying the same, the telephone was disconnected by the opposite party. When they were in a position to adjust a sum of Rs. 2,100/- out of the deposit of Rs. 8,000/- and when a sum of Rs. 456/- was only found due by the opposite party on verification, it is not stated why they should rush to disconnect the service connection. It is stated that the phone was installed even on 31.3.1995. If so, the opposite party must be having records to show that the phone was installed on 31.3.1995. But, such records are not produced. Ex. A2 is the notice which is dated 1.4.1997. It does not bear any signature of the Accounts Officer. But, it bears some note dt. 5/4. There is number noted as 9390/2.4.1997 which apparently means the despatch number. There is a postal seal of Kolapalli dated 4.7.1997. The complainant''s case is that he received it only on 8.7.1997. There is nothing to show that this communication was received before 7.4.1997 by the opposite party. Further, a demand has been issued by the Junior Telecom Officer granting time till 15.4.1997 to pay the amount. It is not only admitted but it is also proved that the complainant paid the amount on 15.4.1997. But, even without verifying whether the amount is paid or not on the very same day i.e., on 15.4.1997, in a hurried manner, the telephone has been disconnected. Thus, this is a case where we find a wooden approach on the part of the department. As though heavens will fall in a day, they go about disconnecting when the complainant had time till 5 p.m. on 15.4.1997 to make payment. Equity requires that the opposite party verifies whether any payment has been made or not and then effect disconnection. It is not known why they should go about disconnecting it in such a hurried and feverish fashion. Thus, there is a callous indifference to the sensibilities of a consumer and the disconnection has been effected in the most crooked manner possible. Therefore, the lower Forum was justified in holding that there was deficiency in service and it was further justified in directing the opposite party to give reconnection of telephone without charging any amount. The direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost are justifiable awards with which we do not propose to interfere.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Cost Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance: Two months. Appeal dismissed.