B V KHATAWATE Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPHS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant is working as Income Tax and Sales Tax Consultant at Gadag. On 14.8.1987 he applied for a Telephone connection to his office at Gadag to the S. D. O. T. , Gadag. In this application he had stated that he did not want STD barring. But on 22.2.1989 he gave an application to the office of the S. D. O. T. , Gadag, requesting for barring the STD facility to the Telephone to be installed in his office. It is admitted by Mr. C. Prakash, learned Advocate for the Respondent that the acknowledgement produced by the Complainant bears the initials of the official then working in the office of the S. D. O. T. , Gadag. On 27.3.1989 Telephone Number 7583 was installed in the office of the Complainant. A bill for Rs.2,260/was issued to the complainant on 1.6.1989 which included the rent from 27.5.1989 to 31.8.1989 and charges for calls made from 27.3.1989 to 15.5.1989 and Trunk-call charges of Rs.116/-. On a complaint by the Complainant, the Divisional officer. Telecom, Hubli (Randa ). , reduced the amount of Bill from Rs.2,260/- to Rs.798/-. The Complainant's appeal to the Telecom District Manager, Hubli was dismissed. On 31.7.1989 the Complainant's Telephone was disconnected for non-payment of dues as the complainant failed to deposit inspite of notices by the Respondent. Hence this complaint by the Complainant for restoration of the Telephone connection and for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of loss of reputation and goodwill due to illegal disconnection of his Telephone.

(2.) The Respondent has contended that the Telephone of the Complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of the dues and so he is not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) Although the Respondent has denied the receipt of the application dated 22.2.1989 of the Complainant for barring the STD facility, it is now admitted that the same was received. If after receiving the application for barring the STD facility of the complainant, the Office of the Respondent misplaces it, the complainant cannot be penalised. The Department itself has reduced the amount of the Bill from Rs.2,260/- to Rs.798/-. This shows that there was something wrong in recording the readings. It is also not disputed that the STD facility to the telephone of the complainant was barred with effect from 5.5.1989. It is also not disputed that the Complainant had sent a reminder on 12.4.1989 in respect of the barring of the STD facility to his Telephone. Inspite of that there has been delay on the part of the Respondent in barring the STD facility to the Telephone of the Complainant. The Complainant's Advocate was good enough to furnish the details of the calls made by the Complainant from 15.5.1989 to 1.6.1989 from the records of the Respondent. It is submitted that for the period from 15.5.1989 to 1.6.1989 when the STD facility was barred, the complainant had made only 56 calls. We think that we can safely take the number of calls as the basis for determining the calls made by the Complainant during the period from 27.3.1989 to 15.5.1989. At that rate, he must have made only about 196 calls. The said number is less than the number of free calls allowed to the complainant for that period. Hence the complainant cannot be charged anything for the calls made during that period. The complainant is liable to pay the rent of Rs.253/- plus trunk-call charges of Rs.116/- i. e. , in all Rs.369/- instead of Rs.798/-.