Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Satish Chandra, J.
Naresh Chandra Roy
Vs.
Union Of India
Civil order 3937 of 1983
Decided On : Jan 01, 1987
TELECOMMUNICATION - RENTAL CHARGES - TELEPHONE OUT OF ORDER - LIABILITY TO PAY RENT - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - DUTY TO MAINTAIN TELEPHONE CONNECTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - REFUND OF RENT - ARBITRATION - DISCONNECTION OF TELEPHONE - "USUAL ORDER" BY SINGLE JUDGE. 1. The Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, is liable to maintain the telephone connection in working order. 2. The rental is charged for telephone service provided. If the telephone goes out of order, the officials are liable to rectify the telephone line with reasonable as laid down in the Directorate letters. 3. If the telephone authorities failed to do so, they are clearly guilty of breach of contract and cannot claim payment of the rental for the period for which the telephone remained out of order. 4. The rental is for providing telephone service; else it would amount to a case of unjust enrichment of a party in breach. 5. The order of the Telecommunication Board providing for grant of rebate of rental if the telephone service of a subscriber remained interrupted for 30 days or more is not retrospective and cannot be enforced retrospectively. 6. If the telephone became dead during the course of the cycle, only the proportionate rental for the period the telephone was in working order would be chargeable. 7. In cases where payment has been made for such periods it will be liable to be refunded or adjusted against future bills. 8. In case there is a refund or adjustment for any broken period of cycle the number of free calls will be reduced proportionately. 9. In case where there is a dispute whether the telephone became dead and continued out of order for a particular period, the same may be decided by arbitration under S 77B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 10. The telephone will not be disconnected for non-payment of rental for a period when it was dead.
Fact of the Case:
In a group of writ petitions, the petitioners complained that their telephone lines went out of order and despite repeated complaints, the telephone authorities failed to rectify the lines but continued to send bills for the period the lines were dead. The petitioners sought restoration of their telephone lines and a refund of the rental charges paid for the period the lines were out of order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the telephone authorities were negligent in discharging their duty to restore the telephone lines and that they 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. The court held that the petitioners were not liable to pay the rental charges for the period the telephone lines were out of order and that the telephone authorities were not entitled to disconnect the lines for non-payment of such charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the rental charges for the period the telephone lines were out of order? 2. Whether the telephone authorities were entitled to disconnect the lines for non-payment of such charges?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rental charges were for telephone service provided and that the petitioners were not liable to pay for the period the lines were out of order because no service was provided during that time. 2. The court held that the telephone authorities were in breach of contract for failing to maintain the telephone lines in working order and that they were not entitled to claim payment of the rental charges for the period the lines were out of order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioners' applications and directed the telephone authorities to restore the telephone lines and refund or adjust the rental charges paid for the period the lines were out of order. The court also directed that the telephone lines would not be disconnected for non-payment of rental charges for a period when the lines were dead.
1. JANUARY 1, 1987In 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 JANUARY 1, 1987
2. JANUARY 1, 1987 In C JANUARY 1, 1987O JANUARY 1, 1987 12259(w) of 1983, Sk JANUARY 1, 1987 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 JANUARY 1, 1987 The petitioner made repeated complaints to the respondent on various dates stated below :
January 1, 1987 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 January 1, 1987 The petitioner paid all the bills under protest January 1, 1987 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 January 1, 1987 But this also evoked no response January 1, 1987 At the admission stage this Court passed an order on 4-10-83 directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's telephone connection January 1, 1987 The telephone connection was restored immediately January 1, 1987 The respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in this case January 1, 1987
3. IN C January 1, 1987O January 1, 1987 15030 (W) of 1983, Chiranji Lal Murarka, the uncontroverted allegation is that the petitioner's telephone went out of order on 20th April, 1983 January 1, 1987 He made numerous complaints particularly on 9th January 1, 1987 June, 1983, 18th June, 1983, 18th August, 1983 and 30th August, 1983 but the telephone was not restored January 1, 1987 On the other hand, the petitioner was served with bill for rental of Rs January 1, 1987 200/- each in October and December, 1983 January 1, 1987 These bills were not paid by the petitioner January 1, 1987 The petitioner gave legal notice on 12th December, 1983 requesting restoration of the telephone within 7 days January 1, 1987 This also had no effect January 1, 1987 On 23rd December, 1983, this court passed an order directing the respondents/telephone authorities to restore the telephone line by 31st December, 1983 January 1, 1987 The Divisional Engineer was directed to submit his report January 1, 1987 He submitted a report stating that the telephone line has been restored January 1, 1987
4. IN C January 1, 1987O January 1, 1987 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 January 1, 1987 He lodged complaints with the respondents and thereafter personally met the respondent authorities on 4th August, 1983 and on subsequent dates January 1, 1987 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 January 1, 1987 The telephone line remained out of order January 1, 1987 The respondents, however, continued to send bills for the period subsequent to July 1983 January 1, 1987 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 January 1, 1987 IN this case also, this Court on 30th January, 1984 directed the respondents to restore the telephone connection January 1, 1987 It was immediately restored January 1, 1987
In C January 1, 1987O January 1, 1987 4019(w) of 1984, Gangadhar Bajaj the uncontroverted allegation is that the petitioner's telephone went out of order since 29th
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
