DIVISIONAL ENGINEER Vs. HARIKISHAN BHATTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the common order dated 30th May, 1994 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 460 and 461 both of 1993 which arose out of the common order dated 8th June, 1993 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras in O.P. Nos. 983/92 and 43/93. By the impugned order the State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum against the opposite parties who were appellants before the State Commission and one revision petitioners. The complaints had been filed by the present respondent Harikishan Bhattad. In this revision petition we are concerned only with the order of the State Commission concerning Appeal No. 460/93. It has arisen out of the order passed by the District Forum in O.P. No. 983 of 1992.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant he is subscriber in respect of telephone No. 443398 and was regularly paying the charges covered by the bills issued by the Telecom Department. Earlier the telephone was not having STD facility. On the request of the complainant-subscriber it was provided on 22nd May, 1992. While requesting for STD facility the complainant had also requested to furnish him a computerised statement of the calls along with the bill. The complainant received a bill dated 7th July, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 10,228.90. He applied to the Telecom Department to give him computerised statement of the calls. The Department replied that the matter has been referred to the Superintendent, Madras Telephones. When the complainant did not receive any further communication he got issued a Lawyer's notice to the Department on 10th August, 1992 and also requested not to resort to any drastic action of disconnection before settling the said dispute. The notice was served on the Department on the same dated i.e. 10th August, 1992. Inspite of the complainant's request to furnish him the details of the calls made by him those were not furnished to him. In fact there was no response from the Telecom Department. However, the Department disconnected the telephone of the complainant on 12th August, 1992. The case of the complainant is that on account of illegal disconnection he has been subjected to harassment and also suffered mental and physical agony as well as financial loss and the said action of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 10,000/-as compensation plus restoration of the telephone. This was the subject matter of O.P No. 983/92.

(3.) BOTH the complaints were countenanced by the Telecom Department. The allegations of the complainant were denied. It was, however, admitted that the complainant had asked for the details of the calls. As there was no such facility in Mambalam Telephone Exchange, therefore, the computerised details of the calls could not be furnished. As the complainant had failed to pay the amount of the bill dated 7th July, 1992 his telephone was disconnected on 12th August, 1992. About the second bill dated 7th September, 1992 for Rs. 12,760/-, it was pleaded that it was proper as there was no excess recording of the calls. The Department prayed that the complainant was not entitled to any relief in either of the complaints.