The Consumer Protection Act aims to protect the interest of the consumer from deficiency in service, and a consumer who pays bills regularly cannot be penalized for the fault of another consumer.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Short question arising for determination in this appeal filed against the impugned order dated 7.7.2000 passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagri, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 62/1999, is whether the telephone connection of one subscriber can be disconnected for non-payment of bills of a telephone connection in the name of another subscriber either on account of their close or blood relationship and both the connections being in the same premises.

2. Vide impugned order dated 7.7.2000 the appellant MTNL has been directed to restore the telephone of the respondent without any additional charges and also pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation for disconnecting the telephone of daughter-in-law for failure of payment of bill of a connection in the name of her father-in-law.

3. The Counsel for the appellant contends that there is nexus not only between the respondent and her father-in-law but also with another daughter-in-law who also filed a similar complaint in the sense that the father-in-law has been using or misusing the telephones of her daughter-in-law after disconnection of his telephone on account of non-payment of the bills.

4. Be that as it may the appellant is not authorised to disconnect the telephone connection against which it has been receiving regular payments. The telephone authorities are only concerned that the payment of bills is regularly made by the consumer. For the fault of another consumer who resides in the same premises and happens to be a blood relation or close relation the consumer who has been regularly making payment cannot be penalised. Every consumer is not only independent entity but has also independent identity and has to be treated independently and cannot be punished for the fault of others.

5. The Counsel for the appellant tried to take refuge under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules for taking action against the respondent who has been paying bills regularly. The Rule 443 provides as under:

“443. Default of payment—If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rulers, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local or trunk), or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephones or the telex so disconnected may if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such a portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex..)”.

6. Apparently the aforesaid rule nowhere authorises the appellant to disconnect the telephone connection of a consumer who happens to be either a close or even blood relation of the defaulting subscriber. However, learned Counsel has still contended with vehemence that if it is proved that there is nexus between the two consumers in the sense that the defaulting subscriber is facilitated to use the telephone of a close relation for business or other activities without paying the pending bill for his telephone due to which his telephone was disconnected the appellant has authority or every reason to disconnect even the telephone of the subscriber who has been regularly paying the bill. We do not feel inclined to agree with this contention or plea. In our view a consumer who is not a defaulter or who continues paying bills regularly cannot be penalised for the act of the defaulting subscriber.

7. This plea may be available to the authorities for different purpose as the Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon decision of Delhi High Court entitled Sujit Singh v. MTNL, 94 (2001) Delhi Law Times 245, wherein above contention of the Counsel was accepted. But so far as the protection of consumer’s interest under the Consumer Pro