TELECOMMUNICATIONS Vs. S SURENDRA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is as follows: The complainant had a telephone connection with indicator No.27225. On 11.7.1999 the complainant received a bill for Rs.15,591/-. But the details of calls were not sent. On 12.8.1999, the complainant sent a cheque for Rs.15,591/- and it was returned. On 25.8.1999, without notice, the complainant's telephone has been disconnected. The disconnection is illegal. Hence the complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. Hence the complaint.

(2.) The opposite party contended that on 11.7.1999 a bill for Rs.15,591/- was sent to the complainant. It was specified in the bill that the payment should be made on or before 13.8.1999. The opposite party is not bound to accept cheques. The complainant ought to have paid the amount in cash. On 7.9.1999, a computerized statement was also sent to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service. Hence, the opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The fact that the Bill was sent on 11.7.1999 for Rs.15,591/- is not disputed. It is also not disputed that itemized bill was not sent. The disconnection was effected on 25.8.1999. But the itemized bill was sent only on 7.9.1999. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to see whether there is any deficiency in service. Ex. A-1 is the bill. The bill is dated 11.7.1999. The pay-by date is 13.8.1999. It is not disputed that the complainant sent a cheque for Rs.15,591/- on 12.8.1999. The receipt of the cheque is not disputed. The bill does not contain any condition saying that the payment by cheque will not be accepted. Nor the bill has any condition stating that if the amount is not paid by 13.8.1999 disconnection will be effected. Moreover, the complainant has requested for itemized bill and this request has been complied with only on 7.9.1999 after the disconnection. Therefore, from the circumstances of this case, it is quite clear that there is deficiency in service. In their letter dated 12.8.1999 while returning the cheque, they have not stated that as per rules they cannot receive the amounts by cheque. On the other hand they have requested him to send the same by cash/dd stating that due to some technical reasons the detailed bill will be supplied along with the next bill. From this letter, it is clear that they meant to grant him time to make payment and have promised to send the itemized bill. If really the cheque was not honoured, then, of course, it was always open to them to resort to disconnection. But from the correspondence also we find that the cheque was sent only on the branch of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Sivakasi and it has been sent to the Accounts Officer, Virudhunagar. Therefore, it is not impossible for the Department to obtain the necessary information regarding the negotiability of the cheque. Therefore, in such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view from that of the lower Forum.