TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER COONOOR Vs. CONSUMER PROTECTION CELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order passed by the lower Forum on 27th July, 1999. The lower Forum accepted the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The facts of this case are not disputed. The telephones numbering 17 that were installed in the office of the 2nd complainant were disconnected on 8.10.1996. But on the representation of the 2nd complainant they were restored on 9.10.1996. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed.

(3.) The complainant has not chosen to produce the concerned bills. According to the complainant, the telephone bills amounting to Rs.11,97,646.40 p. for the 17 telephones were paid at the Post Office at Needle Industries, Ooty on 5.10.1996. The opposite parties had asked for particulars of payment from the 2nd complainant. According to the opposite parties, the 2nd complainant failed to furnish the necessary particulars. The case of the opposite parties is that the subscribers are allowed to pay the bills in any Post Office upto the pay-by date and after the pay-by date, all bills are payable only at the Telecome District Manager's Office cash counter. But with a view to facilitate the subscribers, the opposite parties were receiving the bills even after the pay-by date without surcharge. The bills accepted in the Post Offices are being received by the opposite parties with considerable delay. Therefore, the 2nd complainant was required to produce payment particulars, but the 2nd complainant failed to produce the necessary particulars and, therefore, the telephones were disconnected on 8.10.1996. The 2nd complainant has not produced the bills for the 17 telephones amounting to Rs.11.97,646.40 p. Only if those particulars are produced one can find out whether the payment for those bills had been made at the Post Office on 5.10.1996 i. e. , before the pay-by date or after the pay-by date. Further, even assuming it was paid in time, there is always the possibility of delay in communicating or in forwarding the payment by the Post Office to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken a definite stand that the staff of the opposite parties was deputed to find out from the 2nd complainant the particulars, but the 2nd complainant did not furnish the particulars regarding the date of payment. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a case where any deficiency in service can be spelt out. The 2nd complainant had also contributed to the disconnection by not furnishing the particulars and by making payment at the Post Office after the pay-by date and after the disconnection, the 2nd complainant had approached the opposite parties with particulars after they were satisfied about the fact of payment, the connections were restored on the very next day. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint is misconceived and there is no deficiency in service and, therefore, the order passed by the lower Forum has to be set aside.