TELEPHONE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR CHAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order of the District Forum, Jind directing the restoration of the telephone connection of the respondent and awarding a marginal amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- and ancillary reliefs thereto.

(2.) It was averred by the complainant that he obtained telephone connection No.3522 on the 17th of October, 1990. The very first bill which he received for telephonic charges dated the 14th of November, 1990, was for a period before the 11th of September, 1990 i. e. even prior to the release of his connection. Nevertheless, under departmental pressure, he deposited the said amount and subsequently, he did not receive any bills at all and had to exert to get these prepared for the period from 11th of November, 1990 to the 11th of November, 1991 and thereafter deposited the relevant amounts. However, on the 1st of June, 1992, a bill for Rs.550/- was received which was to be deposited upto 27th of July, 1992, but the date was extended to the 3rd of August, 1992. However, to the complainant's consternation even before he could make the payment thereof his telephone connection was disconnected on the 22nd of July, 1992 and when he protested against the same, he was presented another bill of Rs.500/- in which Rs.100/- was mentioned as reconnection charges. In evitably, the complainant protested to the Department that punitive action was taken against him and his telephone had been unjustifiably disconnected on the 22nd of July, 1992 even before the expiry of the date for the payment of marginal amount of telephone bill. Failing to get any redress from the appellant-department, the complainant knocked at the door of the District Forum, seeking the main relief of reconnection and ancillary orders with compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

(3.) On notice being issued, the appellants in their written statement raised some preliminary objections, to which reference is unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that the very first bill tendered to the respondent was patently erroneous because it pertained to a period earlier than the 17th of October, 1990, when the connection was released to him. It was however, pleaded that the amount wrongly levied had been adjusted" subsequently and it was conceded that the consolidated bill for a sum of Rs.1549/- issued to the complainant in the month of January was duly paid on the 31st of January, 1992. The plea however, taken was that the complainant-respondent was given bills dated 11th of January, 1992 and 11th of March, 1992 for the minimal amount of Rs.200/- each, but he failed to deposit these bills inspite of telephonic reminders etc. The specious plea taken was that the telephone of the respondent was not disconnected for the last bill dated 1st of June, 1992 for which the date of payment had been admittedly extended for the 3rd of August, 1992, but the said disconnection had been done for non-payment of the much earlier bills of 11th of January, 1992 and 11th of March, 1992. It was alleged that a registered notice was given with regard to these to the respondent without getting any response thereto. The other allegations in the complaint were controverted. Despite opportunity given to the appellant-department, no further evidence apart from the written statement was adduced on the record.