TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, BOLANGIR vs KALAHANDI CONSUMERS WELFARE ORGANISATION

NONE appears for the complainant when the appeal is called on. We have heard Mr. Mohapatra the learned Counsel for the appellant-Telecom Department. The order of the District Forum, Nuapara quashing the Bill dated 11.2.1994 is challenged in this appeal. The question for decision is that whether the complainant, would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,760/- under demand note dated 11.2.1994 which is demanded as rentals for the period from 1.7.1992 to 1.1.1994, admittedly during which period the telephone No. 30748 of the complainant remained disconnected. The main grievances of the complainant was that the period during which the telephone remained disconnected, rentals should not be charged. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant that he was not liable to pay the rent and thus allowed the complaint by quashing the bill.

MR. Mohapatra has referred to a judgment of the National Commission in First Appeal No. 250 of 1991 disposed of on 13th April, 1993 where at page 6 (xerox copy) of the judgment the Commission observed as follows : "The telephone department realises the rental from the subscribers for the apparatus and accessories supplied by the deparment. The rental includes the leasing out of the telephone circuit to the subscriber from the exchange. Therefore, when the telephone was disconnected for non-payment of bills and is sought to be restored within six months the subscriber is liable to pay the rental for the telephone service."

An exception was laid down to this rule was that in case of telephone goes out of order and the fault is not removed by the department during any length of time then the department would not be entitled to charge the rental. Admittedly the present case is not the case of the telephone itself going out of order. Admittedly, the present case is a case of non-payment of rentals. We have no hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Mohapatra that under Rule 169, Sub-rule 1 of P. & T. Manual, Vol. 14 the department is entitled to realise the rent for the period during which the telephone remained disconnected. The finding of the lower Forum is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed without costs but we are made it clear that once the petitioner clears up the amount of Rs. 1,760/- as claimed under the bill dated 11.2.1994 the phone shall be reconnected within a period of 7 days from the date of payment. No costs. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal allowed.