CHENNAI TELEPHONES Vs. R KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation for the respondent. Heard Counsel for appellant. The complaint relates to telephone connection and the bill sent by the opposite party viz. , the appellant, for payment by the complainant. The bill is dated 1.10.1997. The pay by date is 21.10.1997. The amount payable is Rs.741/-. The bill, original of which is marked as Ex. A-1, clearly shows that the payment can be made at specified places upto the due date and only at particular places after the due date and that payment can be made by cash/dd/cheque/banker's cheque upto due date and beyond the due date it has to be paid only by way of cash/dd/banker's cheque and cheque will not be accepted. It also provides that the cheque should be drawn in the name of the Accounts Officer of the concerned area where the service is offered. The complainant sent a cheque addressed to the Accounts Officer, Jeenis Road. But the telephone bill provides that it has to be paid only at particular places. It also says that if the payment is to be made by way of cheque, it has to be addressed to the concerned Officer whereas the letter of the complainant containing the cheque is addressed to the Accounts Officer, South West I, Jeenis Road, Chennai : 15. The cheque was originally addressed to the Post Master, and on finding the mistake, it was rectified by the complainant by addressing it to the Junior Telecom Officer (JTO ). The complainant would also submit that he did not attest the correction. Ultimately he sent the amount in full compliance only long after the due date. It is not the complainant's case that his telephone connection was disconnected on account of the non-payment and admittedly the complainant continues to enjoy the connection. The reason for filing the complaint is that the complainant has thus been made to suffer in that the amount sent by him by way of cheque was not accepted and it was returned and he was made to go from one office to another office and that this has caused lot of mental agony to the complainant. Considering the nature of the claim, we are of the opinion that it is a case where no deficiency would arise because it is the complainant's mistake in not following the instructions given in the telephone bill itself, by making payment at the wrong places and in wrong names. The complainant being an educated person, ought to have followed the instructions. If in spite of it the opposite parties had refused to receive the amount, then, perhaps his grievance could be brought to this Forum. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the view that if the complainant has suffered any misery and hardship it is his own making for which the Department cannot be made liable and that there is no deficiency in service at all. The order passed by the Lower Forum is thoroughly erroneous and the complaint ought not to have been entertained. Therefore, we hold that this is a fit case where the order of the Lower Forum has to be set aside.

(2.) In the result, the appeal is allowed, but without costs. The order passed by the Lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. Appeal allowed.