B S N L Vs. JALIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party General Manager B.S.N.L., Hazaribag is appellant before us against the order dated 8.5.2008, passed by District Consumer Forum, Hazaribag, in Consumer Complaint No. 107 of 2007, whereby complaint was allowed and appellant was directed to pay to the respondent -complainant Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and harassment due to illegal disconnection of his telephone and Rs. 500.00 as cost of litigation.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant aged 70 years, was a consumer of telephone No. 262999 since 1995 and he regularly paid the bills and there was no dues against him. But, his telephone was illegally disconnected on 7.9.2007, as a result of which his link with his sons and doctor was disconnected. He lodged complaints before the Telephone Department on 10.9.2007 (8.9.2007 and 9.9.2007 being Saturday and Sunday) and thereafter, his telephone line was reconnected on 10/11.9.2007. Hence, due to the aforesaid careless action of the Telephone Department, the above referred complaint was filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the telephone of the respondent was disconnected on 7.10.2007 in spite of payment of upto date telephone bills. It is also admitted that for such illegal disconnection, the appellant had regretted to the respondent through letter dated 11.9.2007 stating therein that such situation arose due to lack of communication from the Post Office. But after perusal of documents as well as paragraph 11 of the impugned order, it is evident that disconnection of the telephone was made for non -payment of bill dated 11.7.2007 for the period from 1.5.2007 to 30.6.2007 for Rs. 773.00 although the respondent had already paid the said bill on 16.8.2007 at the Post Office. The Head Post Office, Hazaribag also intimated about it to the Telephone Department on 17.8.2007 as its agent i.e. much before disconnection of the telephone on 7.9.2007. Even the Subscriber Record Card of the respondent showed that there was no outstanding dues against the respondent when the telephone line was disconnected. Hence, the appellant department cannot absolve themselves of their responsibility in this connection. There was no negligence on the part of Postal Department in intimating the payment made by the respondent to the appellant Telephone Department, rather there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant -department.