SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Honble Mrs. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag,
President; Prof. Sunil Kanti Kar & Mrs. S. Dutta, Members
CALCUTTA TELEPHONES—Complainant
versus
HARI PRAKASH GUPTA—Opp. Party
S.C. Case No. 872/A of 1992—Decided on 20.4.1993

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Sankar Kar, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party:Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, Advocate.

A consumer is entitled to compensation from the service provider for the delay in complying with the order of the Consumer Commission.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 15 - TELEPHONE CONNECTION - DISCONNECTION - DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION - COMPENSATION - TELEPHONE AUTHORITY DIRECTED TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE CONSUMER.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a consumer, filed a complaint before the Calcutta District Forum against the Calcutta Telephone for disconnection of his telephone line. The District Forum directed the Telephone Authority to reconnect the line and pay compensation to the consumer. The Telephone Authority failed to comply with the order, and the State Commission directed the Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum, Calcutta Telephones to appear in person to show-cause. The Divisional Engineer failed to appear, and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. He later appeared and gave an undertaking to comply with the order.

Finding of the Court:

The State Commission held that the Telephone Authority had acted in a deplorable manner by flouting the order of the Commission. It further held that such kind of tendencies would be greatly prejudicial to the Consumer Protection Act and detrimental to the Act itself.

Issues: 1. Whether the Telephone Authority was justified in disconnecting the consumer's telephone line? 2. Whether the Telephone Authority was liable to pay compensation to the consumer for the delay in complying with the order of the Commission?

Ratio Decidendi: The State Commission held that the Telephone Authority was not justified in disconnecting the consumer's telephone line without following the due process of law. It further held that the Telephone Authority was liable to pay compensation to the consumer for the delay in complying with the order of the Commission.

Final Decision: The State Commission directed the Telephone Authority to reconnect the consumer's telephone line without reconnection charge and pay compensation to the consumer. It also directed the Telephone Authority to keep in abeyance the telephone bills raised for the period when the phone was lying disconnected.

ORDER

Mrs. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag, President—Initially this appeal was preferred by the Calcutta Telephone under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from an order dated 16.5.92 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.J. case No. 34 of 1992 and after hearing entensively to both the parties represented by Mr. Sankar Kar, Counsel for the Calcutta Telephone and Mr. N.R. Mukherjee Counsel for the respondent on several occasion an order was passed on 17.7.92 by us in the matter directing the Calcutta Telephone inter alia to reconnect the Telephone line of the respondent without reconnection charge of Rs. 100/- upon payment of the provisional bills for the disputed cycles 11/91 and 1/92 and such provisional bill to be raised and forwarded to the respondent, we further directed the Calcutta Telephone authority to pay an Ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent.

2. The said order was not complied with by the Calcutta Telephones and in the premises we directed the Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum, Calcutta Telephones to appear in person to show-cause as to why the said order was not complied with; the said Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum Mr. A. Sarkar failed to appear before us inspite of repeated reminders and ultimately an warrant of arrest was issued against him and only the thereafter he entered personal appearance before us. On 18.12.92 the matters was heard once again in presence of both the parties and D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephones only as that date the Telephone Authority submitted the provisional bill (issue date 1.12.92) for disputed circle 11/92 and 1/92 before this Commission and the respondent deposited a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- drawn in favour of Calcutta Telephones against the said two provisional bills for Rs. 2,500/- each.

The D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephone though did not gave any cogent explanation whatsoever as to why he had not complied with our order dt. 17.7.92 till the date however gave an order undertaking in that date he will with the order dt. 17.7.92

3. Subsequently on 23.12.90 we passed another order directing the D.E.F.C Calcutta Telephones to show-cause as to why proceeding u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act should not be started against him. As because it was brought to our notice by the respondent that till 23.12.92 the order dated 17.7.92 had not been complied with.

4. 4.We are sorry to observe that a responsible officer of a Central Government organisation specifically in public unility sector could act in such a deplorable manner and flout the order of this Commission set up under an Central enactment time without numbers.

5. 5.Such kind of tendencies will be greatly prejudicial to this beneficient piece of legislation. Indeed such kind of unholy precedence set up by the Calcutta Telephones would be greatly detrimental to the C.P. Act itself.

6. Be that as it may, the respondent had brought it to our notice by way of applications that due to the delay and delatoritness on the part of the D.E.C.F Calcutta Telephone in complying with the orders of Calcutta District Consumer Forum and then order of State Commission time and again directing the D.E.C.F. Calcutta Telephones to reconnect the Telephone of the respondent before us, his trading business has suffered losses as he has not been able to run it properly without the Telephones and in the premises prays for an compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per month when his Telephone was lying disconnected inspite of specific orders.

7. The respondent has also prayed that the Telephones authorities be directed not to raise bills for the cylce period when his phone was not working and the matter was sub-judice.

8. The Counsel appearing for the Calcutta Telephones had file his objection in writing to their prayers made by the respondent.

9. We have gone through all the applications filed by the parties in the matter and have both the parties at length. Considering all the facts we direct the Calcutta Telephones to reconnect the telephones of the









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top