Union of India vs SARDARI LAL SONI And BROTHERS

THIS appeal is by the Telephone Department against the order of District Forum, Kapurthala dated 18.3.1997 whereby direction was given to the Telephone Department to restore telephone of the complainant and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. The complainant Sardari Lal Soni and Bros. were having telephone No. 2287 installed at their premises Brick Kiln, Kapurthala. There were floods and the telephone remained out of order. Inspite of several complaints having been made, the same was not restored. Hence complaint was filed on September 17, 1996. In the reply filed by the Telephone Department, plea of limitation was taken and it was further stated that the telephone was disconnected temporarily on March 12, 1994 on account of non-payment of bill dated November, 1993 for Rs. 200/- and was permanently closed on November 24, 1995. The plea regarding floods and disruption of telephone service on that account was denied. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum formulated the following three questions for decision : (1) Whether this complaint is barred by limitation ? (2) Whether there is "Deficiency in Service" on the part of respondents is disconnecting the telephone of the complainant ? (3) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled ?

UNDER the question No. 1, the complaint was held to be within time. UNDER question No. 2 deficiency in rendering service was found on the part of the Telephone Department that the Telephone Department had misplaced the file of the complainant and tagged with some other file and this prima facie amounted to deficiency in rendering service. Thus, the complainant was held to be entitled for compensation and restoration of the telephone as referred to above. Learned Counsel for the Union of India has argued that present complaint having been filed on September 17, 1996 was barred by time having been filed beyond two years from the date of disconnection i.e., March 12, 1994. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that temporarily the telephone was closed as alleged in March, 1994 but permanently on November 24, 1995 and from November 24, 1995, the complaint filed in September 1996 is well within two year, period as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Finding of the District Forum on the question of limitation is perfectly correct.

The question as to whether there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Telephone Department is otherwise established on the facts as alleged by the Telephone Department itself. This Commission in several cases has held that though notice in the bill itself is sufficient notice for disconnection, if the amount of the bill is not paid within the time prescribed and the Telephone Department can legitimately disconnect the telephone on that account promptly. However, if such a disconnection takes place after months or years, then it is incumbent upon the Telephone Department to serve a fresh notice giving opportunity to consumer to satisfy the cause. Admittedly after November, 1993, two subsequent bills must have been issued by the Telephone Department in January and in March, 1994, i.e. much before effecting the temporarily disconnection on March 12, 1994. Furthermore, the telephone was permanently disconnected in November, 1995 and it is taken that during this period bills were issued and paid by the complainant. It is not disputed on behalf of the Telephone Department that the amount of the bill of Rs. 200/- of November, 1993 was shown as arrears in the subsequent bills issued before effecting disconnection. Had it been done, the complainant would have paid the same. Since the telephone was not promptly disconnected and it took about four months in temporarily disconnecting it and yet eight months to permanently disconnect it without issuing fresh notice, the action of the Telephone Department in disconnecting the telephone is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. That being the position, the District Forum was fully justified in directing restoration of the telephone since there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Telephone Department as above. The Telephone Department is not entitled to restoration charges or rentals for the intervening period. The compensation granted in the facts of the present case is just and reasonable. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.