The General Manager, Mtnl Vs. M/S. Deversons Stylish Printing Press - Court Judgment

Judgment

Rumnita Mittal, Member:

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum-II dated 31.5.1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 2912/94 entitled M/s. Deversons Stylish Printing Press v. The General Manager, MTNL.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, as stated in the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) are that the respondent is the subscriber of telephone No. 6841715 since 1989. It was alleged that the said telephone was disconnected some time in July, 1993 and on making enquiries from the staff of appellant, it transpired that the said telephone had been disconnected on the ground of non-payment of some of the bills. Thereafter, the respondent obtained the duplicate bills for the billing cycle 1.5.1993 to 1.7.1994 which he had not received earlier and deposited the amounts as per the said bills alongwith the reconnection fee of Rs. 100/- on 22.6.1994. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint was that despite having made the said payments the telephone of the respondent was not restored by the appellant/MTNL. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

3. In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, the appellant/MTNL denied the allegations contained in the complaint and stated therein that the telephone of the respondent was not disconnected in July, 1993 but was disconnected on 27.12.1993 on account of non-payment of bills dated 1.5.1993, 1.7.1993 and 1.9.1993 and also stated that on the payment of the said bills on 10.5.1994 and thereafter on payment of restoration fee on 26.6.1994 the telephone of the respondent was restored vide O.B. 4523 on 22.6.1994 itself.

4. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint with directions to the appellant to restore the telephone of the complainant within a week and report compliance and also to refund the excess payment made by the respondent with interest @ 18% p.a. within a period of 30 days. Vide impugned order the District Forum also directed the appellant/MTNL not to charge rental from May, 1994 onwards till the date of reconnection and also to pay damages and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within a period of 30 days.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant/MTNL has preferred the present appeal before us. The respondent was noticed and made appearance through his Counsel Mr. H.L. Gupta, Advocate.

6. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned District Forum has wrongly held that the appellant/MTNL has been negligent/deficient in service on account of non-delivery of telephone bills, as well as, on account of non-service of notice to the respondent, before disconnecting the telephone of the respondent and as such had acted unauthorisedly and illegally. So far as the latter ground is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant/MTNL has relied upon the provisions of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 as well as a decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in case entitled H.C. Raghubir v. UOI and Ors., reported as 48 (1992) Delhi Law Times 349 (DB). It is apparent on a perusal of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 that the appellant/MTNL can disconnect a telephone without notice to a subscriber, in cases of non-payment of bills/rental etc. The said provision reads as under :

“Rule 443. Default of payment—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. The telephone or telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time.”

7. The above said provisions of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 came up for consideration before the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of H.C. Raghubir v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), wherein the vires of the said rule was challenged and it was held that since the said rule specifically provided that the telephone could be disconnected without notice, therefore, the MTNL is entitled to disconnect the phone of a subscriber without prior notice and that the said provision of law was not ultra vires.

8. The other contention of the appellant was that the District Forum had erred in holding that it was the duty of the appellant/MTNL to ensure that the bills are delivered to a subscriber of a telephone, and has placed reliance on a decision of the National Commission in the case of the District Manager, Patna Telephones v. Dr. Vinay Kumar Sinha, reported as III (1994) CPJ 11 (NC), wherein it has been held :

“The complainant is an educated person. He should have been alerted when he did not receive the bills for two successive billing cycles. The Department is not duty bound to intimate the subscriber about the outstanding dues to show such arrears in the bill for the succeeding periods. On the other hand in case the subscriber should be more cautious and he has not received the bill for a billing cycle he should make proper inquiries and obtain a duplicate bill and make the payment. The telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the dues. Hence, it cannot be said that the disconnection of the complainants telephone was illegal.” (Emphasis supplied)

9. Thus in view of the above observations made by the National Commission, the duty to pay the bills is enjoined on the subscriber of a telephone and, therefore, the District Forum had wrongly held that the appellant/MTNL was deficient in service in not ensuring the delivery of the telephone bills to the respondent.

10. In view of the above cited decisions of the Honble High Court of Delhi and the National Commission on the aforesaid points raised by the appellant the observations of the District Forum regarding the non-delivery of bills and non-service of notice before disconnection of telephone to the respondent, amounting to ‘deficiency in service were not justified and as such the said findings of the District Forum are set aside.

11. It was further contended by the appellant/MTNL that the District Forum had wrongly held vide impugned order that the telephone connection of the respondent had not been restored on 22.6.1994, as alleged by the appellant/MTNL and that the same continued to be disconnected till the passing of the said order. The respondent on the other hand has placed on record copies of the bills dated 1.7.1994, 1.1.1995, wherein the last meter reading shown is 642, which was the meter reading at the time of disconnection, meaning thereby that had the telephone of the respondent been restored, as alleged by the appellant/MTNL, then the said bills would have shown the meter reading to have moved beyond 642. A further perusal of the bill dated 1.1.1995 would show, that though one STD call is registered but the meter reading still remains stationary at 642 only. Thus proving the fact that the telephone of the respondent was not restored on 22nd January, 1994 despite the respondent having paid the outstanding bills as well as the reconnection fee. Therefore, in this regard the appellant/MTNL has been deficient in service, as has been correctly held by the District Forum, as per the impugned order.

12. The telephone connection of the respondent has already been restored and the excess amount charged has been refunded with interest in terms of the impugned order.

13. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the present appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. In partial modification of the impugned order, the appellant is directed not to charge rental for the telephone in question for the period from 22.6.1994 onwards, instead of from 22.5.1994, till the date of reconnection. Further, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded as compensation and cost is also reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. The impugned order stands modified to the above extent only. The directions in terms of the present order be complied with within 60 days failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of this order till actual payment.

The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.

Appeal partly allowed.