Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, only authorizes the disconnection of the subscriber's telephone for non-payment of dues and not the telephone of any other person.

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The District Forum II, has decided two complaints No. 886/98 entitled Sh. Manmohan Sethi v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., and No. 887/98 entitled Smt. Mohini Sethi v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., vide a common order dated 9.6.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, MTNL (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’), has filed the present two appeals. Since both these appeals are interrelated, we will dispose them of together by this order.

2. The facts common to both the appeals, in brief are, that telephone No. 6868081 was installed at premises No. 28, Qutab View Apartments, New Delhi, in the name of Smt. Mohini Sethi, (respondent in Appeal No. A-438/98). The said telephone was provided with STD facility since the date of installation i.e. 28.4.1990. It is the case of Smt. Mohini Sethi, that she was abroad from 16.6.1990 to 6.11.1991, and on her return to India she found her telephone disconnected on account of non-payment of bills. She obtained a copy of the bill dated 19.9.1991 for Rs. 40,397/-. Since, the details of the calls made during the period mentioned in the bill were not provided therein, her husband, Sh. Manmohan Sethi, (respondent in Appeal No. 439/98) wrote a protest letter dated 6.12.1991, to the appellant alleging excess billing and also asking for the above mentioned details. Mrs. Mohini Sethi, was asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant pending investigation of her complaint for excess billing, and her telephone connection was restored. But, later the appellant vide letter dated 7.4.1993, informed the respondent, Mrs. Mohini Sethi, that her above complaint had been investigated by the Excess Billing Complaint Committee (South) and no justification was found for giving her a rebate, as such she was asked to pay the full amount of the bill dated 19.9.1991. Therefore, since the respondent did not make the payment of the above bill as well as another bill dated 19.1.1993 her telephone was disconnected on 24.5.1993. The respondent Smt. Mohini Sethi, did not pursue the matter further, and shifted to her husband’s residence at M-32, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi, in April, 1992. The telephone No. 6470822 was installed at the above address on 5.4.1992 in the name of Sh. Man Mohan Sethi. On 4.12.1997 Sh. Man Mohan Sethi received a notice from the appellant, asking him to pay the dues pertaining to telephone No. 6868.81 of his wife failing which his telephone No. 6470822 would be disconnected and on 6.1.1998, the same was actually disconnected. Sh. Man Mohan Sethi protested against the said action of the appellant, and even wrote to the Deputy General Manager, MTNL, but to no avail. Therefore, both the respondents filed complaints before the District Forum on 1.4.1998.

3. The District Forum, issued notices of both the complaints of the respondents, to the appellants, which were received by the P.S. to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant on 6.4.1998. Since none appeared, on behalf of the appellants on the date of hearing fixed by the learned District Forum, they were proceeded ex parte in the proceedings, and the final orders were passed against the appellant vide order dated 9.6.1998.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the appellant has preferred the present two appeals, challenging the impugned order on various grounds. Notice of the appeals were served on both the respondents, who put in their appearance and filed their respective replies. We have heard the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the appellant as well Sh. Man Mohan Sethi, on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife, and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record.

5. The first contention of the appellant is that the impugned order of the learned District Forum is illegal on account of the fact that the appellant was not given clear 30 days’ time to appear and contest the complaints of the respondents, in terms of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986