TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman, President
& Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran, Member
K. ARUNAGIRI—Appellant
versus
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, COIMBATORE & ANR.—Respondents
A.P. No. 732 of 2000—Decided on 23.3.2005

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the department cannot disconnect the telephone standing in the name of the wife or the mother for the default committed by the husband or son in respect of the telephone standing in the name of the husband or son. Such disconnection would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and amount to gross deficiency in service.

Headnote:

Telephone Disconnection - Department's Liability - The court held that the department cannot disconnect the telephone standing in the name of the wife or the mother for the default committed by the husband or son in respect of the telephone standing in the name of the husband or son. The disconnection of a phone of a son for default by the mother and the disconnection of the phone of the wife for the default of the husband was disapproved. The court found that the telephone subscriptions, accounts, and indicator numbers are different, and therefore, disconnection of the wife's telephone for the husband's default would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and amount to gross deficiency in service. The court also cited previous decisions supporting the position that such disconnection is illegal, and held that there is deficiency in service. The department was directed to pay compensation to the complainant.

Fact of the Case:

The court considered whether the department can disconnect the telephone standing in the name of the wife or the mother for the default committed by the husband or son in respect of the telephone standing in the name of the husband or son. The Lower Forum accepted the Department’s plea and dismissed the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the action of the Department cannot be sustained, especially in view of previous court orders disapproving the disconnection of a phone of a son for default by the mother and the disconnection of the phone of the wife for the default of the husband. The court held that the disconnection of the wife's telephone for the husband's default would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and amount to gross deficiency in service. The department was directed to pay compensation to the complainant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the department can disconnect the telephone standing in the name of the wife or the mother for the default committed by the husband or son in respect of the telephone standing in the name of the husband or son.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the telephone subscriptions, accounts, and indicator numbers are different, and therefore, disconnection of the wife's telephone for the husband's default would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and amount to gross deficiency in service. The court also cited previous decisions supporting the position that such disconnection is illegal.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order passed by the Lower Forum was set aside, and the opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 500/- within two months.