AJAY DUBEY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELEGRAPHS AND TELECOMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Complainant against the Order dated 28th July, 1992 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The present Re¬spondent Nos.1 to 4 - General Manager, Department of Telegraphs and Telecommuni¬cation, H.P. Circle, Divisional Engineer, Tele¬graph, Hamirpur, Assistant Engineer, Tele¬graphs 7 Telecommunication, Una and Junior Engineer, Telegraphs, Telephones, Una respec¬tively had been arrayed in the complaint as Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 in the same Order. The State Commission dismissed the complaint but directed that in case of reconnection of the telephone of the Complainant subject to the payment of various charges whatsoever found ultimately by the Divisional Engineer, recon¬nection charges or other ancillary charges would not be claimed from the Complainant.

(2.) THE facts as gathered from the record are that the Complainant is a subscriber of tele¬phone No. 2476 and it was installed at his resi¬dence at Una in December, 1988. Prior to 23rd September, 1989 STD facility was not available in Exchange at Una on which date Electronic Exchange System with STD facility, national and international, was introduced. The Com¬plainant's case is that bimonthly telephone bills were not used to be sent to him. On the other hand Opposite Party No. 4 used to convey to the Complainant on telephone to deposit the de¬mand bill and the amount was to be deposited within a prescribed period failing which he was threatened with the disconnection of his telephone. The Complainant used to go to the office of the said Junior Engineer to receive a copy of the bill but no bill was given to him. Since the date of instillation of the telephone connection the Complainant has received only four demand bills regarding the telephone bills. He got those bills from the office of Junior Engineer on request. On 25th February, 1990 the Junior Engineer telephonically informed the Com¬plainant to deposit Rs. 1,700/- as telephone bill without sending the bill or details of the calls. The Complainant requested the said Junior Engineer to sent the bill but his request was not acceded to and on the other hand he was threat¬ened with the disconnection. On 26th February, 1990 the Complainant sent letter (which is at page 26 of the paper book) to Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephones at Una complaining that the Department was not sending the bills and was informed on telephone to collect the same from the office. On 5th March, 1990 the tele¬phone of the Complainant was disconnected without any prior intimation. The Complainant deposited the said amount and the telephone was restored on 13th March, 1990. The Com¬plainant visited the office of the Junior Engineer and requested for the bill and he was issued a bill for Rs. 2,228/- instead of Rs. 1,700/-On 1st July, 1990 the Complainant was again informed by the Office of the Junior Engi¬neer to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,000/- failing which the telephone will be disconnected. The Complainant did not deposit the amount and his telephone was disconnected on 4th July, 1990 without any prior notice. On 5th July, 1990 the Complainant enquired from the Assistant Engineer that why his telephone has been dis¬connected without prior notice. The Complain¬ant was asked to deposit Rs. 28,000/- and thereafter, the telephone connection would be restored. He was also informed that Rs. 20,000/- were still to be recovered from him as his actual bill was for Rs. 48,000/-. The Com¬plainant wrote letter (at page 29 of the paper book) on 6th July, 1980 to the Respondent No.1 against irregular/excess billing at Una Exchange. The Complainant narrated the difficul¬ties faced by him. However, this letter did no bear any fruit.

(3.) THE Respondents in their counter averred that telephone connection to the Com¬plainant was given on 25th March, 1989 and not on 18th of December, 1988 as stated by the Complainant. According to them all the bills used to be regularly despatched to the Com¬plainant and Junior Engineer Telephones used to issue demand note against regular bills for making payments on the specific requests of subscriber in case of loss of a regular bill. They admitted the disconnection of the Complain¬ant's telephone on 7th March, 1990 due to non¬payment and subsequent restoration on pay¬ment of Rs. 2,228/- inclusive of Rs. 100/- as restoration charges and Rs. 420/-as additional security. The factum of disconnection of the telephone of the Complainant for the second time for non-payment of the outstanding dues was admitted but it was pleaded that it was disconnected on 9th July, 1990 and not on 5th July, 1990 as claimed by the Complainant. According to the Respondents the Complainant had not paid his outstanding dues in spite of telephonic reminders as per the standing provisions. It was further contended that the telephone of the Complainant had been in¬stalled in a residential/non-business premises but the Complainant has been misusing the same for his business purposes. Average of the bills preceding to the period of disputed bills cannot be taken as criteria as that pertains to the period when STD, national and international dialing facility, was not introduced at Una Exchange. The disconnection of the telephone facilities of the Complainant was in pursuance of Rules 443 and 511(3) of the Posts and Tele¬graphs Manual.