BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) against order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No.511 of 1997, Bhupinder Singh V/s. General Manager, Telecom, Sector 18, Chandigarh. The District Forum-I has allowed the complaint to the extent that it awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant who stood deprived of the facility of telephone w. e. f.24.2.1997. Besides the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded as costs.

(2.) The complaint was filed on the allegations that the complainant/appellant Mr. Bhupinder Singh is a practising Advocate on Income Tax Side. He held a telephone No.608142 installed at his residence No.3583, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh under OYT Scheme. The said telephone was disconnected on 24.2.1997 without any notice from the opposite party - General Manager, Telecom. A written representation was submitted by the appellant on 25.2.1997 and it was followed by another representation dated 10.3.1997 praying for the restoration of the telephone connection but no action was taken on these representations by the opposite party/respondent as a result of the disconnection of the telephone. The complainant suffered financial loss, harassment and loss of reputation. He filed the complaint case before the District Forum-I and claimed damages to the extent of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint to the date of actual and physical realization of the amount. The appellant/complainant also sought direction to the opposite party to restore the said telephone connection. A reply was filed on behalf of the opposite party before the District Forum-I wherein it was not disputed that the telephone number 608142 was installed at the residence of the complainant and the payment of the bills were being made by the complainant. It was, however, pleaded that the complainant had given an undertaking of one Shri Sandeep Garg for making payment of his telephone bills. Pertaining to telephone Nos.542849/702849 amounting to Rs.18,909/- of the telephone for the aforesaid period but since the complainant failed to make the payment of those bills, hence his telephone connection was disconnected.

(3.) In support of his case, the appellant/complainant filed his own affidavit and also the affidavit of Shri K. S. Puri. The opposite party filed affidavit of Shri R. L. Arora, Phone Inspector (D ). The District Forum-I held that the action of the opposite party in disconnecting his telephone for no pending bills relating to that telephone amounted to deficiency in service resulting in physical and mental harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. It was held that the telephone connection of complainant bearing No.608142 could not be disconnected for non-payment of bills relating to other telephone numbers 542849/702849. Only on the undertaking to pay the said bills for and on behalf of Shri Sandeep Garg as mentioned earlier, the District Forum-I awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.