TELEPHONE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER vs KRISHAN KUMAR CHAHAL

THIS appeal assails the order of the District Forum, Jind directing the restoration of the telephone connection of the respondent and awarding a marginal amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 500/- and ancillary reliefs thereto.

IT was averred by the complainant that he obtained telephone connection No. 3522 on the 17th of October, 1990. The very first bill which he received for telephonic charges dated the 14th of November, 1990, was for a period before the 11th of September, 1990 i.e. even prior to the release of his connection. Nevertheless, under departmental pressure, he deposited the said amount and subsequently, he did not receive any bills at all and had to exert to get these prepared for the period from 11th of November, 1990 to the 11th of November, 1991 and thereafter deposited the relevant amounts. However, on the 1st of June, 1992, a bill for Rs.550/- was received which was to be deposited upto 27th of July, 1992, but the date was extended to the 3rd of August, 1992. However, to the complainant''s consternation even before he could make the payment thereof his telephone connection was disconnected on the 22nd of July, 1992 and when he protested against the same, he was presented another bill of Rs. 500/- in which Rs. 100/- was mentioned as reconnection charges. In evitably, the complainant protested to the Department that punitive action was taken against him and his telephone had been unjustifiably disconnected on the 22nd of July, 1992 even before the expiry of the date for the payment of marginal amount of telephone bill. Failing to get any redress from the appellant-department, the complainant knocked at the door of the District Forum, seeking the main relief of reconnection and ancillary orders with compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. On notice being issued, the appellants in their written statement raised some preliminary objections, to which reference is unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that the very first bill tendered to the respondent was patently erroneous because it pertained to a period earlier than the 17th of October, 1990, when the connection was released to him. It was however, pleaded that the amount wrongly levied had been adjusted" subsequently and it was conceded that the consolidated bill for a sum of Rs. 1549/- issued to the complainant in the month of January was duly paid on the 31st of January, 1992. The plea however, taken was that the complainant-respondent was given bills dated 11th of January, 1992 and 11th of March, 1992 for the minimal amount of Rs. 200/- each, but he failed to deposit these bills inspite of telephonic reminders etc. The specious plea taken was that the telephone of the respondent was not disconnected for the last bill dated 1st of June, 1992 for which the date of payment had been admittedly extended for the 3rd of August, 1992, but the said disconnection had been done for non-payment of the much earlier bills of 11th of January, 1992 and 11th of March, 1992. It was alleged that a registered notice was given with regard to these to the respondent without getting any response thereto. The other allegations in the complaint were controverted. Despite opportunity given to the appellant-department, no further evidence apart from the written statement was adduced on the record.

The District Forum on the material before it, came to a conclusion on facts in the following terms : - "We are of the view that the respondent Department could not establish as to on what basis the telephone of the complainant was disconnected on the 22nd of July, 1992 when the bill dated 1st of June, 1992 for Rs. 550/- which was initially to be got deposited on or before 27th of July, 1992 and the date of payment of which was extended upto the 3rd of August, 1992, as such disconnection of the telephone on the 22nd of July, 1992 on the ground of non-payment of the bill dated 1st of June, 1992 appears to be unjustified."

In the light of the aforesaid finding, the relief noticed at the very out-set was granted.

MR. Arun Walia, the learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss in challenging the factual finding of the District Forum afore-mentioned. It was sought to be tenuously and speciously argued that even though the date of the payment of the last bill had been extended to the 3rd of August, 1992, the respondent''s connection was disconnected much earlier than the said date on the 22nd of July, 1992 purportedly for the even earlier alleged bills of 11th of January, 1992 and 11th of March, 1992. It was also half-heartedly pleaded that a written notice of disconnection was also issued against the respondent. We are unable to find any modicum of merit in the aforesaid submission. An overall view of the matter would indicate that the appellant-department had treated the respondent-consumer some what cavalierly from the day of the installation of the telephone at his premises. It is virtually the admitted position that he was first saddled with bills for a period even prior to the release of his connection on the 17th of October, 1990. Under the patent peril of disconnection he was compelled to deposit the unauthorized charges. This indeed could not be denied on the part of the appellant. What next meets the eye is the fact that the appellant-board was remiss in not sending the bills for electric charges thereafter and the respondent-consumer had to run from pillar to post to secure a consolidated bill for a sum of Rs. 1549/-. It is the admitted position in the written statement itself that the said amount was duly paid on the 31st of January, 1992. It is common ground that thereafter the last bill raised against the respondent was dated the 1st of June, 1992 and admittedly the payment therefore was to be made by the 3rd of August, 1992. However, far from giving any period of grace, the appellant-department hot headedly proceeded to disconnect the telephone much earlier on the 22nd of July, 1992. The somewhat arbitrary acts of the appellant are thus written large on the present record.

THE specious plea that even though the last bill dated 1st of June, 1992 was yet within the time specified for its payment, the respondent''s telephone was disconnected on the alleged non-payment of the earlier bill of 11th of January, 1992 seems on the face of it curiously apart from the same being without any foundational base. Normally it has to be assumed that the last bill would include the earlier arrears and the whole amount due from the subscriber. THEre is not a hint of explanation on behalf of the appellant in this regard. It is unexplained as to why the earlier purported bills of January and March were not added to the last bill issued in June, 1992. Apparently clutching at the straw it was alleged that a registered notice had been issued to the respondent in this behalf. However, not a tittle of evidence pertaining to the same was adduced below. Even a copy of the same was not produced. Even when pressed, the learned Counsel for the appellant could not even give the alleged date of the notice far from specifying the purported contents thereof. On the existing material it has therefore, to be inevitably concluded that there is no merit in this belated plea; which appears to be an afterthought to lend some semblance to a crumbling case. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to discover any merit in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 300/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.