TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION Vs. SUBASH CHANDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- against the Telecom Department to Subash Chander Sharma, the complainant. A further direction was given for sending copy of the order to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication for holding enquiry into the matter as to why the telephone of the complainant was disconnected when there was no amount in arrears and to recover the amount of compensation from the defaulting official Shri Subash Chander Sharma, a practicing Advocate at Bathinda is subscriber of Telephone No.52863. He received a bill for Rs.287/-, payable upto October 12,1996. The amount was deposited in the Post Office Bucho Mandi on October 10, 1996 vide Receipt No.238. Subsequently, he received another bill in the month of November, 1996 payable by November 21, 1996. He approached the Telephone Department for extension of time for making the deposit. The time was extended to November 27, 1996 and he deposited the amount in the Head Office at Bathinda vide Receipt No.316 dated November 27, 1996. The telephone was disconnected on November 19,1996 which action was stated to be illegal and arbitrary. He made written complaint but to no effect. Thus, he approached the District Forum for the relief. He claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony suffered. The Telephone Department submitted the reply. The issuance of the bills and the payments made on the respective dates were not disputed. However, it was stated that due date for making payment of the bill of September, 1996 was September 21,1996, which extended upto October 12, 1996. Though the payment was made on October 10,1996 but the complainant did not show the receipt after making the payment and this led the Telephone Department to disconnect the same. The disconnection was effected after giving reminders on the telephone. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits. The District Forum found deficiency in rendering service in disconnecting of the telephone when the amount stood deposited.

(2.) The question for consideration is as to whether it was incumbent upon the complainant to show the receipt while visiting the office of the Telephone Department of deposit of the bill after the due date though within the extended period. It may be observed that subsequently on verification of the deposit of the amount, the telephone was restored on December 7, 1996. Rule 443 as contained in Appendix II at page 215 of the Book 'law Relating to Telephones' by R. N. Vats provides for disconnection of the telephone for non payment of the bill within the due date and subsequently to restore the same on payment of the bill and the additional amount, if any including rentals for the intervening period. Such a matter came up for consideration before this Commission in "surinder Singh and Another V/s. Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal, 1996 3 CPJ 304 wherein such a question was answered in the affirmative. In the present case admittedly the time for deposit of the bill was extended and within the extended period the bill was deposited. It was the duty of the complainant to communicate the deposit of the amount promptly to the Telephone Department. The position would have been different if initial amount was to be deposited by a particular date. The Telephone Department was to verify on its own about non payment of the bill before taking action for disconnection of the telephone. There was thus no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Telephone Department. Finding of the District Forum in this respect is reversed.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.