T.D.M.CHAPRA vs SHIV DAYAL SINGH

THE Telephone District Manager, Chapra and two others are the appellants and Mr. Shiv Dayal Singh who was the complainant in the District Forum is the respondent. THE appeal is against an order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the District Forum, Chapra in Complaint Case No. 107/2002. By the impugned orders the District Forum had directed the O.Ps. (appellants) to restore the telephone connection of the complainant without any charge. Further, the bill dated 11.3.2002 for an amount of Rs. 1,038 by the department was cancelled and a compensation of Rs. 2,000 was ordered to be paid.

THE facts of the complaint in brief were as follows. As a senior citizen, the complainant got a telephone connection installed in his house in the rural area so that he can be in touch with his issues and relations who were spreed out all over the country and abroad. THE telephone remained out of order since January, 2000 and when he learnt it was due to some mechanical problem in the set, he surrendered the instrument to the department on 25.3.2000 and asked for a new set. In spite of pursuing the request the department was able to give a new telephone instrument only in July, 2000. He received a bill dated 11.3.2002 for Rs. 1,038 which related to the period when the phone was out of order. Hence the complaint was filed. We have perused the records including the rejoinder filed by the respondent and we have heard the parties. The impugned order shows that a belated petition as reply by one K. Ansari, D.E. (A and P) while he was not a party to the proceeding and had no authorization in his favour from the Telephone Department or the O.Ps. had been filed. Hence, it was held that such a petition cannot be maintained by the Forum. Since no other reply or evidence was given by the O.Ps., the District Forum considered all documents and passed the impugned order. It also shows that on behalf of the O.Ps. a point was raised that the complaint is not entertainable by the Forum. This was however rejected by the District Forum.

In the appeal it has been pleaded that several points were agitated before the Forum during the arguments and written statement was also filed which were not considered. The order does not show that any other point, other than maintainability was raised before the Forum. If the petition filed by one K. Ansari is being referred to as written statement has been filed and the District Forum has rightly rejected the petition of K. Ansari being not maintainable without authority. A copy of K. Ansari''s petition has however been filed by the respondent as an annexure to his rejoinder. A perusal of this also shows that it is nothing but a barren denial of the allegations withut any supporting documents as evidence.

ANOTHER plea in the appeal is that the complainant is not the consumer in this case, rather his NRI son is the subscriber of the phone. On this point along with his rejoinder, the respondent has filed Annexures A and B. A is a photocopy of intimation from the telephone authorities to the District Forum that the telephone in question stands in the name of one Vijay Kumar and not in the name of the complainant. Annexure B is the copy of the declaration given by Vijay Kumar Singh son of Shiv Dayal Singh dated 6.8.2002 that the telephone in question has been installed in his village residence for the use of H.U.F., headed by his father and the members of his family were authorized by him to use, operate and maintain the phone. In such a situation the plea that the complainant is not a consumer is not acceptable especially when the son is a N.R.I. In the appeal which is typed, an entry in handwriting has been made in page-13. It has been stated that the disputed bill dated 11.3.2002 contained three different bills of dues which relate to earlier periods and the date of the three bills are shown as 11.7.2000, 11.11.2000 and 11.7.2001 and the respondent paid only the regular bill of Rs. 449. A copy of this bill dated 11.3.2002 has not been filed by the appellant to clarify whether the dues claimed related to the period when the phone was out of order and surrendered till the replacement of the instrument or of earlier period. Therefore, the claim of the disputed bill of being of earlier period is also not established.

THUS, we find that K. Ansari''s petition without authority and without merit had been rightly rejected by the District Forum. The statement that written statement was filed and not considered by the District Forum does not stand scrutiny, especially when a copy of such written statement, if any filed, has not been filed in the appeal stage. In a recent ruling of the Hon''ble National Commisison on 8.11.2005 in the case of Geeta Devi v. MTNL, IV (2005) CPJ 260 (NC), it has been clearly held that charging of rental for a period when the telephone remains disconnected, is unjustified, as no service is rendered during that period. Similar rulings have also been given by State Commission indicating that there is no question of raising bills for the period of disconnection as no call is possible from disconnected telephones. After careful consideration, we find no reason to cause any intervention in the impugned orders which is, therefore, sustained. The appeal is being dismissed as being without merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.