IQBAL SINGH Vs. S D O POONCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the Complainant is that his telephone at Poonch was disconnected by the non-applicant in the month of November, 1991. He made a representation but to no effect. His case is that thereafter he paid restoration charges of Rs.100/- on 9.4.92 but his telephone was not re-connected till the Divisional Forum had to intervene and it was ultimately re-connected on 1.10.92 when the telephone connection became operational for the fist time. Now despite the fact that his telephone was made operational only on 1.10.92 he received bills worth Rs.150/- two in May on account of payment of rents from April, 92 to June, 92.

(2.) The stand of the Opposite Party in short is that the telephone bills have been though paid by the Complainant in the Postal Department were not brought to the knowledge of the non-applicant and since the Complainant is a chronic defaulter the telephone was disconnected on 31.3.92 and was only restored on 1.10.92 under the orders of the Divisional Forum. The Complainant states that he is a businessman and as a result of this dis-connection and non-restoration despite payment of restoration fee he has been harassed and has suffered business loss etc. He, therefore, claims compensation on account of these grievances for the failure of the non-applicants to provide him the services for which he had paid.

(3.) Now after hearing Counsel for the parties we may first take up the contention of the Counsel for the non-applicant that the telephone was disconnected because the Complainant is a chronic defaulter. He has invited to our attention to a duplicate bill pertaining to various periods from 7/90 to 7/92 which was actually paid by the Complainant on 9.4.92. Reference to this has been made possibly to indicate that it was for non-payment of these bills in time that the telephone was disconnected on 31.3.92. We are not satisfied with the defence, because of the fact that the restoration charges were paid by the Complainant on 9.4.92 and these were received indicating thereby that even on 9.4.92 his telephone was dis-connected. The stand of the Complainant that it was disconnected in Nov. , 1991 is sufficiently supported by his testimony and there is no rebuttal to this effect. Strangely if the telephone was disconnected in the month of March, 1992 we fail to understand as to how the rent for 4/92 and 6/92 were sent to the Complainant. This only shows that there is some thing shaddy about the whole affair and the SDO Telephones has been playing tricks with him. This fact is also evidenced by the letter dated 16.9.92 by the same officer addressed to the Complainant in which mention about the dis-connection has been made and he has been requested to pay the duplicate bill of Rs.100/- for restoration before 30.9.92. This is being done despite the admitted fact that reconnection fee had already been paid on 9.4.92. On this aspect the SDO is silent and why should he say so in view of the fact that he is out to somehow subject the Complainant to harassment. We are not shown any records by the non-applicant that the telephone was actually disconnected on 31.3.92. This stand is only evidenced by the objections unsupported by any evidence or documentary proof. We are, therefore, unable to rely upon mere objections in the absence of any support by credible evidence and there is no reason for us to disbelieve that this telephone was not disconnected in Nov. , 1991.