Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SATISH CHANDRA
NARESH CHANDRA ROY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O. 3937 Of 1983
Decided On : 02/01/1954
TELEPHONE SERVICES - Rental Charges - Liability to Pay - Telephone Line Out of Order - Negligence of Telephone Authorities - Refund of Rental Charges - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Arbitration - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Ss. 7b, 412, 434, 436, 443, 474, 519a - Telegraph Rules, 1951, Rr. 412, 434, 436, 443, 474, 519a.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed by telephone subscribers alleging that their telephone lines had been out of order for extended periods, despite repeated complaints to the telephone authorities. The authorities continued to send bills for rental charges, which the petitioners paid under protest. The petitioners sought restoration of their telephone lines, refund of rental charges paid for periods when the lines were out of order, and a declaration that the authorities were not entitled to charge rental for such periods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the telephone authorities had been negligent in rectifying the faults and restoring the telephone lines, as evidenced by the fact that the lines were restored promptly after the court passed interim orders directing their restoration. The court held that the authorities were not entitled to charge rental for periods when the telephone lines were out of order, as the rental was for providing telephone service, which was not provided during those periods.
Issues: 1. Whether the telephone authorities were liable to pay rental charges for periods when the telephone lines were out of order due to their negligence? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a refund of rental charges paid for such periods? 3. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in light of the arbitration provision under Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the telephone authorities were not entitled to charge rental for periods when the telephone lines were out of order due to their negligence. The court reasoned that the rental was for providing telephone service, which was not provided during those periods. The court also noted that the authorities had failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Directorate of Phones of Telecommunication Board regarding the prompt clearance of faults and fixing of responsibility for delay in clearance. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a refund of rental charges paid for periods when the telephone lines were out of order. The court reasoned that the authorities were not entitled to retain the rental charges for periods when they had failed to provide the telephone service. 3. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite the arbitration provision under Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The court reasoned that the arbitration provision was not an adequate alternative remedy in the present case, as the authorities had failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Directorate of Phones of Telecommunication Board and had not taken any steps to rectify the faults and restore the telephone lines.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the telephone authorities to refund the rental charges paid by the petitioners for periods when the telephone lines were out of order. The court also directed the authorities to restore the telephone lines in the event that they became out of order in the future within three days.
( 1 ). IN this group of writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that their telephone line went out of order but in spite of repeated complaints the telephone authorities have not rectified the line, but have been sending bills for it.
( 2 ). In C. O. 12259 (w) of 1983, Sk. Abdul Rahim, it has been stated that since January, 1983, the telephone became out of order intermittently and since March 1983 the telephone remained completely dead and inoperative. The petitioner made repeated complaints to the respondent on various dates stated below : Complaint No. Date
11-1-83
A 225
22-1-83
A 238
14-2-83
A 40
1-3-83
A 490
8-3-83
A 409
21-3-83
A 196
29-3-83
A 179
14-5-83
A 272
19-5-83
A 476
20-5-83
A 70
6-6-83
A 176
28-6-83
A 15
26-7-83
A 33
29-8-83
A 455
30-6-83
A 33
1-9-83
A 268
9-9-83
A 353
16-9-83
A 32
( 3 ). In spite of these complaints, no steps were taken by the respondent to restore the telephone connection but bills are being regularly sent towards rental of the telephone, for the period after the telephone became dead. The petitioner paid all the bills under protest. Ultimately he on 10th August, 1983 gave a legal notice to the respondents demanding restoration of the line within 48 hours failing which he will be compelled to move this Hon'ble Court. But this also evoked no response. At the admission stage this Court passed an order on 4-10-83 directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's telephone connection. The telephone connection was restored immediately. The respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in this case.
( 4 ) IN C. O. 15030 (W) of 1983, Chiranji Lal Murarka, the uncontroverted allegation is that the petitioner's telephone went out of order on 20th April, 1983. He made numerous complaints particularly on 9th. June, 1983, 18th June, 1983, 18th August, 1983 and 30th August, 1983 but the telephone was not restored. On the other hand, the petitioner was served with bill for rental of Rs. 200/- each in October and December, 1983. These bills were not paid by the petitioner. The petitioner gave legal notice on 12th December, 1983 requesting restoration of the telephone within 7 days. This also had no effect. On 23rd December, 1983, this court passed an order directing the respondents/telephone authorities to restore the telephone line by 31st December, 1983. The Divisional Engineer was directed to submit his report. He submitted a report stating that the telephone line has been restored.
( 5 ) IN C. O. 3629 (W) of 1984, Deb Guru Ghosh, the uncontroverted allegation is that the petitioner's telephone became dead and is out of order since 27th July, 1983. He lodged complaints with the respondents and thereafter personally met the respondent authorities on 4th August, 1983 and on subsequent dates. He again lodged a written complaint on 8th September, 1983 and thereafter sent the reminder on 28th November, 1983 but all these evoked no response. The telephone line remained out of order. The respondents, however, continued to send bills for the period subsequent to July 1983. Since the telephone is out of order, he did not pay the said bills The petitioner's case is that the respondents are not entitled to charge rental for the period during which the telephone remained out of order, for no fault of the subscriber He also alleged that the respondents have no system for maintaining the records correctly. In this case also, this Court on 30th January, 1984 directed the respondents to restore the telephone connection. It was immediately restored.
( 6 ) IN C. O. 4019 (w) of 1984, Gangadhar Bajaj the uncontroverted allegation is that the petitioner's telephone went out of order since 29th June, 1983. In spite of complaints reminder, requests and representations, the telephone line has not been restored. On the other hand, the telephone authorities continued to send bills for rental regularly. The petitioner paid the bills in the hope th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
