Union of India vs VINA JIGYASI

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.1999 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 10.10.1995 of a District Forum whereby complaint was allowed and petitioners/opposite parties were directed to re-connect the telephone of the respondent/complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent was the subscriber of telephone No. 544868 which was installed at her house. Dault Ram Jigyasi, husband of the respondent was also subscriber of telephone No. 76600 which was installed at his business premises. Respondent''s husband was in arrears of dues and for non-payment thereof telephone No. 76600 was disconnected on 16.3.1992. Said telephone of the respondent was disconnected on 30.3.1995 on ground of non-payment of said dues by her husband. Alleging deficiency in service the respondent filed complaint which was resisted by the petitioners by filing joint written version. Dis-connection of telephone No. 544868 on 30.3.95 was not disputed. However, it was alleged that amount of Rs. 1,92,531 was due from Daulat Ram Jigyasi who lives with the respondent, in respect of telephone No. 76600 and due to non-payment of this amount said telephone No. 544868 was disconnected after notice as per rules. It was claimed that telephone No. 544868 though installed in the name of respondent was in fact being used by her husband also for business purposes. Controversy between the parties revolves around the issue if the petitioners under Rule 443 of Indian Telephone Rules could have legally disconnected the telephone of the respondent, subscriber for non-payment of telephone dues by her husband, defaulter subscriber?

Submission advanced by Mr. Rajeev Bansal for petitioners was that telephone No. 544868 which was installed on 3.12.1992 after disconnection of telephone No. 76600 on 16.3.1992, was being used by the husband of respondent also for business purpose and both the respondent and her husband have been living jointly. In support of this submission, our attention was drawn particularly to para No. 6 of the complaint and para No. 3 of both the written version and affidavit of M.M. Singh, SDO. In para No. 6 of complaint it is, inter alia, alleged that the husband of respondent has been suffering business loss for non-availability of telephone. In para No. 3 of the written version and affidavit it is averred that both the respondent and her husband have been living in same house. Said paras of complaint, written version and affidavit, thus, support the submission in regard to telephone No. 544868 being used for business purpose by the respondent''s husband and both the respondent and her husband living together in the same house. At this stage, reference needs be made to the decision in Surjit Singh v. MTNL, 94 (2001) DLT 245. In this decision, telephone bearing No. 3265301 installed at the business premises of writ petitioner was disconnected for refusal to pay the dues in respect of another telephone bearing No. 5416493 in the name of his wife installed at the residence. It was submitted on behalf of writ petitioner that on ground of non-payment of telephone dues in respect of said telephone in the name of wife, the respondent cannot decline restoration of telephone line bearing No. 3265301 under Rule 443 of Indian Telephone Rules. Both the writ petitioner and his wife were shown to be living together. Relying on the decision in C.W.P. 1963/96, Sukh Dayal Narula v. Union of India & MTNL, decided on 26.9.1997 and C.W.P. 5117/96, Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. MTNL, decided on 1.7.1996 by a Division Bench, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the respondent was justified in not restoring telephone in the name of petitioner because of refusal to pay amount of Rs. 1,56,899 due in respect of telephone in the name of his wife which was also enjoyed and used by the petitioner. Considering the ratio of the decisions and the facts of present case the orders passed by Fora below deserve to be set aside being legally erroneous.

ACCORDINGLY, while allowing revision, aforesaid orders dated 10.10.1995 and 12.2.1999 are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.