UNION OF INDIA Vs. VINA JIGYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.1999 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 10.10.1995 of a District Forum whereby complaint was allowed and petitioners/opposite parties were directed to re-connect the telephone of the respondent/complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent was the subscriber of telephone No. 544868 which was installed at her house. Dault Ram Jigyasi, husband of the respondent was also subscriber of telephone No. 76600 which was installed at his business premises. Respondent's husband was in arrears of dues and for non-payment thereof telephone No. 76600 was disconnected on 16.3.1992. Said telephone of the respondent was disconnected on 30.3.1995 on ground of non-payment of said dues by her husband. Alleging deficiency in service the respondent filed complaint which was resisted by the petitioners by filing joint written version. Dis-connection of telephone No. 544868 on 30.3.95 was not disputed. However, it was alleged that amount of Rs. 1,92,531 was due from Daulat Ram Jigyasi who lives with the respondent, in respect of telephone No. 76600 and due to non-payment of this amount said telephone No. 544868 was disconnected after notice as per rules. It was claimed that telephone No. 544868 though installed in the name of respondent was in fact being used by her husband also for business purposes.

(3.) Controversy between the parties revolves around the issue if the petitioners under Rule 443 of Indian Telephone Rules could have legally disconnected the telephone of the respondent, subscriber for non-payment of telephone dues by her husband, defaulter subscriber?