TELECOMMUNICATION DISTRICT ENGINEER vs Telu Ram

THE department of Telecommunication somewhat curiously appeals against the order of the District Forum, Jind virtually declining relief to the respondent-consumer.

SINCE we are firmly of the view that the order under appeal has to be upheld it is unnecessary to notice the facts & merits in any great detail in this order of affirmance. It suffices to mention that the respondent-consumer had primarily challenged a bill for telephonic charges dated 1st of July, 1993 for Rs. 2091/-. The District Forum on the basis of the material before it came to the firm conclusion that the amount of the disputed bill could not be said to be excessive or unjustified, and therefore required no reduction. Having thus virtually rejected the complaint a marginal direction in the following terms was given :- "However, the aforesaid telephone of the complainant was disconnected on 5.7.1993 due to non-payment of the disputed bill. As such, it is directed that the respondent-Department shall restore the telephone connection of the complainant within one week of the depositing of the amount of out-standing bills by the complainant but the complainant shall not be liable to pay rental charges for the period during which his telephone remained disconnected. The complaint is disposed off accordingly."

Mr. Harinder Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss to support the appeal and assail the aforementioned innocuous direction. It was sought to be argued that respondent was bound to pay rental charges also for the period during which the telephone had remained disconnected.

IN the present context the aforesaid submission has only to be noticed and rejected. It was common ground before us that in the present case, before disconnection no written registered notice was issued to the respondent nor any opportunity afforded to him. This Commission in 1992 CPC 278, J.S. Rathi of Panchkula v. The District Manager (Telecom) Ambala Cantt. & Others after an in-depth discussion had categorically held as follows:- "It is held that a subscriber''s telephone cannot be disconnected by the Department without first duly serving a written notice to that effect upon him and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the demand, or to show cause against the same."

In the light of the above, it is obvious that the disconnection of the respondents'' connection was unauthorised and he cannot possibly be penalised with any dues or levies at all. The appellant -department has indeed to thank itself that the respondent had not staked his claim for compensation for an unauthorised disconnection or has not preferred a cross appeal seeking relief on that score. Plainly enough there is no merit in the tenuous stand sought to be taken by the appellant-department.

THE appeal is wholly without merit and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.