GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DEPARTMENT JALANDHAR Vs. VEENA KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Telecom Department and the challenge is to the order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated June 17,1998. A direction was given by the District Forum under the impugned order to the Telephone Department not to charge any rent for the period the telephone of the complainant remained disconnected and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused. Further, department was left to recover the amount of compensation from the erring official.

(2.) Veena Kapur, the complainant was having telephone No.262255. Her husband Nand Kumar Kapur was earlier having another telephone No.4844 at his business premises M/s. Kay Kay Industrial Corporation, of which Nand Kumar was the proprietor. Against the aforesaid telephone, there were arrears for the period April, 1991 to October, 1993 amounting to Rs.23,471/-. On account of such dues the aforesaid telephone was disconnected on December 29, 1993. It was on June 6, 1995 that on the application of Veena Kapur the telephone No.262255 was allotted. Since Nand Kumar did not pay the arrears in spite of best efforts made by the Telephone Department, a notice was issued to the complainant, Veena Kapur, to pay the same. At one stage, she also agreed to pay the amount. Hence, a letter was written to her to pay the same on November 28,1997. Since she did not pay the same, her telephone No.262255 was disconnected on January 9,1998. Subsequently, the same was restored on February 20,1998. This action of the Telephone Department in illegally disconnecting the telephone of the complainant was challenged before the District Forum and claim for compensation was also made. The Telephone Department contested the complaint, inter alia, asserting that their action was justified and was under the rules (Rule 443 ). The plea of the Telephone Department was not accepted by the District Forum that the impugned order was passed.

(3.) In appeal, learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has raised two questions; one, that the disconnection of the telephone was proper, and secondly, the quantum of compensation granted is highly excessive. It is argued by Mr. G. C. Babbar, Advocate for the Telephone Department that disconnection of the telephone was after serving notice under Rule 443 and was, therefore, legal. This contention cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel has referred to certain decisions of the High Court where High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Photocopies of such judgments were produced. Civil Writ Petition No.1220 of 1988 of Delhi High Court decided on August 12,1998. Writ Petition No.5863 of 1987 of Madras High Court in S. Thangam V/s. The Area Manager (South), Madras Telephones, Madras, decided on September 4,1987. Writ Petition No.8008 of 1986 decided by Madras High Court in Zarina Begum V/s. The General Manager, Telephones, Madras and Writ Petition No.33 of 1989 in Rita Kumari V/s. Mahanagar, Telephone Nigam Limited, decided on November 12,1990 by Delhi High Court.