Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mrs. Davinder Kaur Bhamrah, Member
KAMAL KUMAR—Appellant
versus
S.D.O. TELEPHONES, TELECOMMUNICATION
DEPARTMENT, ROPAR & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 79 of 1997—Decided on 25.2.1999
TELEPHONE BILL - DISCONNECTION OF TELEPHONE - ILLEGAL BILL - LIABILITY OF SUBSCRIBER - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 27 - INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 - SECTION 7-B - INDIAN TELEGRAPH RULES, 1951 - RULE 443 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a fruit merchant, received an exorbitant telephone bill of Rs. 8,664/- in June 1996. He challenged the bill by issuing a registered notice and approaching the District Forum with a complaint, seeking a direction to the Telephone Department not to disconnect the telephone. However, the telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the bill. The complainant alleged that he was not provided details of the calls for which the bill was issued and that he had only STD facility on the telephone and not ISD facility. The Telephone Department contended that the bill was correctly issued and that the telephone was disconnected prior to the filing of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Telephone Department could not provide ISD facility on the telephone without a request from the subscriber. The court also held that the non-providing of details of the calls made amounted to deficiency in rendering service. The court further held that the complainant was not liable to pay the bill for ISD calls that he did not make. The court also held that the disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of the illegal bill was not legally valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Telephone Department could provide ISD facility on the telephone without a request from the subscriber? 2. Whether the non-providing of details of the calls made amounted to deficiency in rendering service? 3. Whether the complainant was liable to pay the bill for ISD calls that he did not make? 4. Whether the disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of the illegal bill was legally valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Telephone Department could not provide ISD facility on the telephone without a request from the subscriber because it would be unfair to hold the subscriber liable for charges incurred on a service that he did not request. 2. The court held that the non-providing of details of the calls made amounted to deficiency in rendering service because it prevented the subscriber from verifying the accuracy of the bill and from disputing any charges that he did not incur. 3. The court held that the complainant was not liable to pay the bill for ISD calls that he did not make because he had not requested ISD facility and had not been informed by the Telephone Department that such facility was available on his telephone. 4. The court held that the disconnection of the telephone for non-payment of the illegal bill was not legally valid because the subscriber was not liable to pay the bill.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the complainant and directed the Telephone Department to issue a revised bill excluding the ISD calls, to restore the telephone promptly without charging any restoration fees or rentals for the intervening period, and to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—Vide this order two cross appeals are being disposed of, wherein challenge is to the order of the District Forum, Ropar dated December 24,1996. Appeal No. 79 of 1997 has been filed by the complainant Kamal Kumar whereas Appeal No. 99 of 1997 has been filed by the Department of Telecommunication. While allowing the complaint filed by Kamal Kumar, District Forum directed the Telephone Department to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- with the further direction to reconnect the telephone on payment of pending dues after adjusting the amount of compensation and costs as mentioned above and without charging any rent for the intervening period. Further direction was given for taking resort to the provisions of Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the directions referred to above.
2. Kamal Kumar, a fruit merchant was having a telephone No. 30053 at his shop at Morinda. He received an exorbitant telephone bill in June, 1996 amounting to Rs. 8,664/-. He challenged the same by issuing a registered notice and approaching the District Forum with the complaint, for a direction to the Telephone Department not to disconnect the telephone. However, the telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the bill aforesaid as per allegations of the Telephone Department. The complainant had alleged that he was not provided details of the calls for which the bill was issued in spite of the inquiry being made and he was having only S.T.D. facility on the telephone and not I.S.D. facility. The Telephone Department took up the plea that the bill was correctly issued and the telephone was disconnected prior to filing of the complaint. On the asking of the complainant S.T.D facility was restored on the telephone. Since It was Electronic Exchange S.T.D. and I.S.D. facility was available alongwith dynamic locking system. Thus the action of the Telephone Department in disconnecting the telephone for non-payment of the bill was stated to be justified. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents, on the basis of which impugned order was passed.
3. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that since the complainant never requested for I.S.D. facility and most of the calls given in the print-out filed before the District Forum relating to International calls, the complainant is not liable to make payment of the same and the bill raised was illegal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has argued that with the installation of Electronic Exchange I.S.D. facility is allowed and since the complainant had applied for S.T.D. facility, which was restored, the complainant is now liable to make payment of the bill, which was correctly raised. Alongwith the appeal filed by the Telephone Department, photocopy of the letter alleged to have been written by Kamal Kumar, complainant for S.T.D. facility has been produced, on which the order for restoration was passed on April 27, 1993. The fact that complainant had applied for restoration of S.T.D. facility is otherwise mentioned in the affidavit of Raghubir Chand filed on behalf of the complainant. In para 6 it was specifically stated by him that the applicant had not applied for N.S.D. and I.S.D. facility for the telephone and the respondent sent the bill illegally and wrongly to the applicant. Thus, the question for consideration is as to whether the Telephone Department of its own could provide I.S.D. facility on the telephone for which no request was made by the subscriber. The request made as already referred to above was only for S.T.D. facility and not for international calls. It may be stated that as and when any facility is provided or taken back, necessary fees are charged by the Telephone Department.
4. If without asking for I.S.D. facility, on installation of the new Telephone Exchange, of its own the Telephone Department provided the said facility, of which employees of the Teleph
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
