Union of India vs NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 198/2000.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a subscriber of phone Nos. 401602 and 615348. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, complainant No. 1 has telephone No. 401602 and he is Chief Editor of Savera Times. Sri N.K. Tiwari, complainant No. 2 is the Chief Editor and has telephone No. 615348. No bills for these telephones are due and these telephones were disconnected on 15.9.1999 and were thereafter connected on 21.9.1999. THEreafter they were disconnected on 15.12.1999, but before the disconnection no information was given for disconnection. THE telephone has not been energized so far inspite of requests. THE complainants have prayed for damages. It is alleged in the written version by the opposite party that telephone No. 603318 was given to the complainant and on account of non-payment of the bills the telephone was disconnected. According to rules no telephone can be given to a person against whom the dues are there. Since the complainant does not pay the bill of a telephone, then his telephone can be disconnected. It has also been alleged that in connection with telephone No. 603318 Complaint No. 535/1995 was filed which has been dismissed. The review application has also been dismissed.

The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum, who after perusing the evidence directed that both the telephones be re-energised within a period of 30 days. No reconnection charges are to be taken from the complainants along with bill amount. The rent for this period will also not be realized. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as damages and Rs. 500/- as costs.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Telephone Department has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as arguments of respondent who was present in person.

IN the present case according to the Counsel for the appellant the dispute is about six months bills. These bills are for period before the disconnection of the telephone. According to learned Counsel the complainants are journalists and they have made a number of calls on account of which the bills were not inflated and the telephone was disconnected for non-payment. According to the complainant, no bill was due for payment. Hence the telephone should not have been disconnected. A perusal of the judgment goes to show that previously a telephone No. 603318 was allotted to the complainant and that telephone was disconnected for non-payment of bills. On account of non-payment of bill of that telephone, present telephone Nos. 401602 and 614348 were disconnected. The learned District Forum has mentioned that these telephones could not have been disconnected for non-payment of bill of telephone No. 603318. The learned Counsel has shown the relevant rule to show that if there are arrears against one telephone the other telephone existing in the name of that person can be disconnected. The case with respect to telephone No. 603318 has been discussed against which an appeal was pending which has also been decided. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Rule No. 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules which reads as under : "If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice."

When there is a provision in the rule for disconnection of the telephone, the Department is competent enough to disconnect the other telephone for non-payment of the bill standing against the same person. The learned District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter in the right perception and has allowed the complaint. Unless the bill of the other telephone is paid, the complainant''s telephone cannot be energised. Thus the learned District Forum has committed a mistake in allowing the complaint. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.