DISTRICT MANAGER PATNA TELEPHONES Vs. VINAY KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the District Manager, Patna Telephones, Patna (Bihar) who was the Opposite Party in the complaint filed by the present Respondent Dr. Vinay Kumar Sinha before the District Forum. The case of the Complainant is that he has a telephone connection No. 227687. He has been regularly paying his telephone bills. He received a bill dated 1st September, 1991 for Rs. 318/- which was paid by him on 18th September, 1991. On 30th October, 1991 his telephone went out of order. On inquiry from the Telephone Department he came to know that the telephone had been disconnected for non-payment of bills dated 1st April, 1991 for Rs. 429/- and 1st July, 1991 for Rs. 523/-. The case of the Complainant is that no arrears were shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991 and he also did not receive those bills. According to the disconnection of his telephone was wrongful and he suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/-.

(2.) THE case of the Opposite Party was that several reminders were given to the Complainant but the amount of bills dated 1st April, 1991 and 1st July, 1991 were not paid. The last reminder was given on 28th October, 1991 on telephone which was received by one Shri Ashok. Therefore, the telephone was disconnected on 30th October, 1991 and the connection was restored when the complainant made the entire payment.

(3.) THE Department filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The State Commission held that the arrears were not shown in the bill dated 1st September, 1991, and had they been shown the Complainant would have paid the amount of the bills as he was regular in payment. Based on the above reasoning it held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Department and the Complainant had been rightly allowed compensation by the District Forum. The quantum of the compensation was also upheld on the ground that the Complainant is a practising doctor and an award of Rs. 2,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive for compensating him for the humiliation faced by him as also the extra efforts that he must have made in the absence of his telephone being in order to attend on his ailing patients. The Department has now come before us by means of this petition.