This is an appeal filed by Telephone Department against the judgment and award passed by District Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No.314/99 decided on 10/12/1999. By allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent herein the Forum below directed the telephone department to cancel the notice issued to the complainant/Respondent in respect of disconnection of telephone No.672972. Aggrieved by this order, the telephone department Amravati has filed this appeal. Facts lie in narrow compass as under...
Complainant Shyam was having two telephone connections one at his residence bearing No.78959 and another in his office bearing No.672972. It was the grievance of the complainant that in respect of telephone connection at his residence, three bills were wrongly issued and he had made a complaint with the Opponent. Since he had not paid the bills, his telephone connection was disconnected for which he had already filed a separate complaint. But he received another notice from the telephone department in respect of telephone No. 672972 which was installed at his office premises that for non payment of bills amounting to Rs.8435/- in respect of telephone connection No.78959 which is at his residence, his telephone connection at office premises will also be disconnected. He challenged the notice dated 9/11/1999 sent by Opponent.
Relying on certain judgments forum below held that this is not permissible in law. In fact, it was the contention of the telephone department that they have all the enabling powers under Indian Telegraph Rules,1951. Under rule 443 of the said rules, if a person is having two telephone connections and if he has not paid bill for one telephone, his other connection in respect of which the bills are paid, also can be disconnected to force the consumer to pay the bills of first telephone connection. Relying on this provision of Indian Telegraph Rules, it was the contention of the department that they have got all the powers to disconnect even the telephone in the office premises of the complainant for non payment of bills in respect of telephone connection at his residence. This was negatived by the District Forum and the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opponent not to disconnect said telephone No.672972. Aggrieved by this award, the telephone department filed this appeal.
In the case of The Accounts Officer, O/O Telecom District Engineer, Bankura (WB) Vs. M/s Krishna Trading Co. (1999) NCJ (NC) Hon’ble National Commission laid down that under Indian Telegraph Rules, rule 443, disconnection of 2nd telephone connection of Respondent firm for non payment of bills in respect of another telephone of the firm is permissible and the award passed by the District Forum and State Commission was set-aside. In the instant case, same facts are involved and the ruling of the National Commission mentioned supra is squarely applicable to the same. Complainant is having two connections, one at his office and another at his residence. He has not paid bills in respect of connection at his residence and as such the department is empowered under the rules to disconnect his telephone connection of his office. In view of this fact, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is required to be quashed and set-aside.
