PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the parties heard. Mr. Bimal Kumar Paul is the subscriber of Mobile No. 9436122848 from BSNL and since its very inception the average bill was never more than Rs. 478/-. However, the disputed bill dated 10.02.2008, for the billing period 01.01.2008 to 31.01.2008 was Rs. 1723/-, which was unusually high. Complaint was submitted to the Nodal Officer appointed under the ‘Telecom Consumer Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulation, 2009’. The Nodal Officer did not decide that case. Consequently, BSNL disconnected the line, on 17.04.2008, on the ground that the disputed amount was not paid. 2. The complainant approached the District Forum. The District Forum, vide its order dated 08.12.2010 allowed the complaint, cancelled the bill of Rs. 1723/- and granted compensation in the sum Rs. 100/- per day for the period of 252 days of disconnection of his telephone line and that the amount would be paid by the opposite party, within 45 days, failing which it was to carry interest @ 12% per annum from 21.04.2008. 3. Aggrieved by that order, first appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- on appellant. The petitioner was directed to pay the entire amount within a month from the date of the order, failing which, penal interest was to be paid @ 15% per annum, after the date of expiry of one month. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this case is not maintainable, in view of the Apex Court’s authority reported in General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Another [(2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 481]. This judgment was decided by two Hon’ble Judges. On the other hand, there is a judgment by three-Members of the Apex Court, reported in Skypak Couriers Ltd., Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [(2000 CTJ 321 (Supreme Court)], which goes against the petitioners. 5. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioners have tendered unconditional apology, which clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions “it is fervently stated that the mistake is unintentional and made inadvertently.” 6. It is also brought to our notice that during the pendency of this case, the telephone was reconnected. While the stay was in force, it was again disconnected by the opposite parties, which remained so, for a period of eight months. Both the foras came to the conclusion that disconnection of telephone for a period of 252 days, was also clearly illegal and arbitrary as it appears from the very admission of the BSNL. Both the fora have returned the concurrent findings and we see no reason to interfere with the same. It is, however, surprising to note that on one hand, the petitioner/opposite party admits its own mistake, on the other hand they did not take any action against their own employees, including the Nodal Officer, for committing such mistake and instead, they preferred to file this frivolous revision petition spending enough public amount. 7. It is transpired that the petitioner has got the telephone connection now-a-days. 8. The revision petition is dismissed. The said amount be paid, within ninety days, otherwise it will carry extra penalty of Rs. 100/- per day, after the expiry of ninety days. |
