LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2005-5-2

UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR BANSAL

Decided On May 18, 2005
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Mohinder Kumar Bansal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal may be noticed:

(2.) COMPLAINANT s son Shri Lalit Bansal had applied to the B.S.N.L. for a mobile phone connection and in the application form he had given the same address as that of his father, which has been mentioned above. Shri Lalit Bansal was given a mobile phone connection by the B.S.N.L. The number is 9417036377. It was alleged by the B.S.N.L. that the son of the complainant i.e., Shri Lalit Bansal did not pay telephone bill of mobile phone, which was to the tune of Rs. 9,665/ -. Since the son of the complainant did not pay the bill for the user of the mobile telephone, the telephone connection (landline) of the complainant was disconnected on that account. This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint vide order dated February 17, 2005 in the following terms :

(3.) IN para 9 of the impugned order, the District Forum has made a reference to the judgment of this Commission in Union of India through its Secretary, Telephone Department and Others v. D.P. Bakshi,2000 1 CPR 464, in which it was held that the disconnection of telephone of the complainant on the ground that his son was in arrears of some payment regarding telephone bill in the name of the son was not permissible. In the judgment of this Commission in D.P. Bakshi s case Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules was also noticed. In the said judgment, a judgment of the Haryana State Commission in D.P. Mohindru v. S.D.O. Telephones, 1993 3 CPJ 1617 was also noticed in which Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules was noticed. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to a Delhi High Court judgment in Rajiv Gosain v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd., 2000 AIR(Del) 431, in which it was held that under somewhat similar circumstances as in the present appeal, the telephone could be disconnected by the Telephone Department. For the sake of ready reference Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules may be noticed: