Union of India, New Delhi vs JABAR MAL BOHRA

AGAINST the order dated 16-11-1990 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 168/89 the opposite parties-appellants have filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). In the impugned order the District Forum found that the amount of guarantee for the period 1-4-1988 to 30-9-1989 at Rs. 200/- per months comes to Rs. 1200/- and as the aforesaid amount has been paid by the complainant-respondent, no amount is outstanding against him. The District Forum further directed opposite parties-appellants to pay Rs. 200/- as compensation to the Complainant-respondent within 15 days and not to recover the rent for the period, the personal telephone (No. 25654) of the complainant remained disconnected. The complainant-respondent submitted a complaint dated 29-41989 before the District Forum, Jodhpur praying that telephone No. 25654 may be restored immediately and that compensation may be awarded. The complainant was granted telephone No. 25654 under special category. This was his personal telephone. It was disconnected on 27-3-1989. He submitted a complaint in writing to the District Engineer Telephones on 29-3-1989 which was not attended and replied. The C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone No. 26496 was also given to the complainant for the use of the public. Formerly the guaranteed amount was Rs. 100/- per month which the complainant deposited upto March 18, 1988. From April, 1988 guaranteed amount of C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone was raised to Rs. 500/- . The first bill was received on 5-6-1988. An application was submitted on 2-7-1988 to the District Engineer and Director Telecom. Jodhpur that it is not possible to pay Rs. 500/- per month and so this C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone may be converted into P.C.O. Reminder was given on 4-8-1988. The complainant received letter No. CCBPCO/88-89/4 dated 27-8-1988 on August 31, 1988. It was written therein. "SANLAGAN PROVIJANAL DEMAND NOTE KA RU. 1147/KA BUGTAN KRIPYA NIRDHARIT AVADHI TAK AWASHY KAREN." Again a letter was written on 14-10-1988 reiterating the demand for conversion but nothing was done by the Department and on 1-10-1988 C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone was disconnected and box was removed on .11-4-1989. Thereafter there was correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties. Ultimately the complaint was filed. With the complaint, the complainant submitted five documents marked as Exs. 1 to 5 which mostly consist of the letters. The opposite parties-appellants submitted a version of the case on 7-8-1989 resisting the complaint. It was stated that as the complainant failed to pay the guaranteed amount the C.C.B.P.C.O. was disconnected on 30-9-1988. There was another personal telephone at the house where C.C.B.P.C.O. was installed on the application of the complainant. Execution of the agreement stipulating to deposit the minimum guaranteed amount in accordance with the Central Govt, order month by month and he having failed to do that, the personal telephone No. 25654 was also disconnected. In other words the defence taken was that against C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone considerable amount was outstanding against the complainant so personal telephone No. 25654 was disconnected in accordance with the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. It was submitted that if the complainant deposits the arrears of the minimum guaranteed amount of telephone No. 25654 (C.C.B.P.C.O.) reconnection of his personal telephone can be made in accordance with the rules. The District Forum after hearing the arguments passed the order on 18-8-1989. A sum Rs. 1200/- for the period 1-4-1988 to 1-10-1988 @ Rs. 200/- per month was outstanding against the complainant (Rs. 500/- were already in deposit of the complainant with the opposite parties, and so if the complainant deposits balance of Rs. 700/- telephone No. 25654 (personal telephone) may be restored. This was of an interim arrangement. For the remaining amount the complaint was posted on 279-1989. Thereafter the District Forum heard the arguments on 12-11-1990_,and passed the impugned order as stated above.

WE heard Mr. U.D. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jabarmal Bohra respondent in-person and have carefully considered the record and the order appealed against in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the complainant-respondent. Mr. Sharma pressed for our consideration that the personal telephone of the complainant whose number is 25654 was rightly disconnected on account of the amount of arrears outstanding against the complainant in respect of C.C.B.P.C.O. Telephone No. 26496. Reference was made to rule 443 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951. It may be recalled that in pursuance of the interim order personal Telephone Number 25654 has already been restored. Telephone No. 25654 was the personal telephone and 26496 was C.C.B.P.C.O. The District Forum relied on a judgment reported in 1990 Gauhati page 47 and held that under rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules, 1951, other telephone of a subscriber cannot be disconnected for the default in making payment of the arrears of first telephone. Similar question arose before us in Ramavatar Chaudhary v. Manager Telecommunication and another (Appeal Nos. 97 and 98 of 1990) and also in Appeal No. 165/90. General Manager Telecom. District Jaipur v. District Forum, Jaipur and Ramavatar Chaudhary decided on June 27, 1991. In that case Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, AIR 1990 Gauhati 47, AIR 1990 Gujarat 85 and AIR 1990 Orissa 51 were considered. Relying on AIR 1990 Gauhati 47 it was held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 does not authorise the Telephone Department to disconnect any telephone other than the one which is subject matter of dispute. It follows therefore that on account of the default in payment of C.C.B.P.C.O. the personal telephone of the complainant could not be disconnected for failure on his part to deposit the amount that was outstanding against the former telephone. However, in this case the District Forum while passing ad interim order calculated the amount and directed the complainant to deposit it and as the amount was deposited the personal telephone of the complainant was restored. The District Forum was right in observing that the telephone 25654 was wrongly disconnected which has already been restored by an ad interim order. In the circumstances of the case it was right in awarding Rs. 100/- as compensation to the complainant for wrongful disconnection of his personal telephone. The principal reason given by the District Forum was that by that time the decision of the Gauhati High Court was not rendered. The order of Rs. 100/- as compensation to the complainant calls for no interference in the facts and circumstances of this case, as on account of the disconnection of the personal telephone the complainant who alleges himself to be vitally concerned in society was put to inconvenience and harassment. It should not also be lost right of that C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone was installed at the premises of the complainant for the use of the general public for which the complainant has merely given a guarantee for the minimum amount and executed the agreement. WE had occasion to consider the question whether a person who gives the minimum guarantee for C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone and commits default in the payment of guarantee amount, can be said to a "consumer" within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It was held in Union of India, New Delhi and Another v. Raghuveer Sen and Another (Appeal No. 233/90 decided on May 31,1991) that such a person is not a "consumer" or in other words it cannot be said to be a subscriber of C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone. If that is so there was no justification whatsoever to disconnect the personal telephone of the complainant for the default committed by him in not paying/depositing the minimum guaranteed amount of the C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone. From this point of view also award of compensation to Rs. 100/- by the District Forum was justified. Next it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum committed an illegality when it held that no amount on account of C.C.B.P.C.O. is outstanding against the complainant inasmuch as Rs. 1200/- @ Rs. 200/- per month for the period 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1988 is in respect of the minimum guaranteed amount that has already been paid and deposited with the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that at the relevant time that during the period 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1988 the minimum guaranteed amount was Rs. 500/- per month and it was changed subsequently and therefore if at all the District Forum should have ordered for the payment of the minimum guaranteed amount for the period 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1988 @ 500/- per month subject to the adjustment of Rs. 500/- which were already lying in deposit with the opposite parties as guaranteed amount. A few facts in this connection may be noticed. There is no dispute that at the relevant time the minimum guaranteed amount stipulated to be paid to the opposite parties as per the agreement was Rs. 500/- per month. It was by notification No. 6-5/87 PHB 5/6-4-1989 that the minimum guaranteed amount for local public telephone, was changed to Rs. 200/- per month in respect of the public telephones in Telecom. Circles that is exchanges of less than 10,000/- lines. Learned Counsel submits that it was after the issuance of the letter dated July 11, 1989 that guaranteed amount was reduced to Rs. 200/- . The quote from the letter. "It has been decided that the minimum guaranteed amount for local Public Telephones will now be as under: Private attended and CCB type Public Telephones (iii) Public Telephones in Telecom. Circles i.e. exchanges of less than 10,000 lines Rs. 200/- "

According to the learned Counsel the District Forum was wrong in calculating the amount for the period 1-4-1988 to 30-9-1988 @ Rs. 200/- for at that time the minimum guaranteed amount was Rs. 500/- per month. It is submitted that amount comes to be Rs. 3,000/- and so after adjusting Rs. 1200/- an order should have been passed for the payment of Rs. 1800/- more. The examination of this contention gives rise to various crucial questions. If the guarantor of C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone is not a "consumer" as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, could the District Forum give a direction for the payment of the guaranteed amount and (2) Are Redressal Forums constituted under the Act competent to grant such relief? There is some justification in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in regard to the guaranteed amount but still the question is could such a direction be given. In view of the decision rendered by us in Raghuveer Singh''s case (supra) it has been held that the guarantor is not a "consumer" and further the Rederessal Forums cannot adjudicate upon the rights of the consumer on the basis of it. The complainant is not a "consumer" so far as C.C.B.P.C.O. telephone is concerned. Apart from that no direction or order could be passed against any authority to do or not to do any act under the Act and that the District Forum established under the Act cannot travel beyond the Act by granting reliefs which are not enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. In compliance of the order passed on 188-1989, the complainant has deposited Rs. 700/- as Rs. 500/- of the minimum guaranteed amount was already in deposit thereby making a total of Rs. 1200/- for the period of 1-4-1988 to 30-9-1988 @ Rs. 200/- per month. In view of the complications that have arisen, we do not consider it necessary to make any observations in this regard. We leave the matter at that. It is for the parties to take appropriate action which they may be advised to take. Subject to the observations made hereinabove the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.