Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Mongia,
President & Mr. C.P. Budhiraja, Member
TELECOMMUNICATION (GENERAL MANAGER), DEPARTMENT
OF TELECOM, PATIALA & ORS.—Appellants
versus
AMAR SINGH—Respondent
Appeal No. 1222 of 2000—Decided on 31.10.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a PCO holder is not considered a subscriber under the Indian Telegraph Rules, and therefore, the telephone connection cannot be disconnected for non-payment of PCO charges.
Headnote:
subscriber - Telecommunications - The court upheld the decision of the District Forum, ruling that a PCO holder is not a subscriber under the Indian Telegraph Rules, and therefore, the telephone connection cannot be disconnected for non-payment of charges related to the PCO. The court interpreted the definition of 'subscriber' and Rule 443 of the 1951 Rules to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a retired supervisor, had a personal telephone connection and a PCO franchise. Due to outstanding PCO payments, the Telecom Department disconnected the complainant's telephone connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the District Forum's decision, stating that the PCO holder is not a subscriber under the Indian Telegraph Rules, and therefore, the telephone connection cannot be disconnected for non-payment of PCO charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the PCO holder could be considered a subscriber under the Indian Telegraph Rules, and if the telephone connection could be disconnected for non-payment of PCO charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'subscriber' and Rule 443 of the 1951 Rules to conclude that the PCO holder is not a subscriber and that the telephone connection cannot be disconnected for non-payment of PCO charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Forum's decision, ruling in favor of the complainant.
Mr. Justice R.S. Mongia, President—This is an appeal by General Manager (Telecommunications) and others against the order dated 18.9.2000 of District Forum, Patiala by which the complaint of Amar Singh, complainant was allowed in the following terms:
“The complaint is allowed. It is held that the opposite parties cannot disconnect the telephone No. 352893 of the complainant for non-payment of the STD/PCO charges. In case the residential telephone connection has been disconnected, the opposite parties shall reconnect the same without releasing any reconnection fee and if the telephone connection has not been disconnected the opposite parties shall not disconnect the same for non-payment of charges of STD/PCO. The opposite parties shall be at liberty to take any action permissible under law for recovery of the amount of bills of STD/PCO from the complainant. The complainant shall be paid costs of Rs. 500 and the amount be remitted to the complainant by way of bank draft or crossed cheque within 15 days from the receipt of copy of order.”
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed. The complainant is a Retd. Supervisor from the Department of Telecommunication. He was holding a personal telephone connection of BSNL bearing No. 352893 at his residence in Patiala. The Telecom Department was providing Public Call Offices (in short ‘PCOs’) from where public could make local calls, STD calls and ISD calls. The franchise of a PCO is given to any particular individual who gets certain commission on the calls made from the PCO. The money collected toward the calls made by the individual is to be paid to the Telecom Department and in turn he gets commission. Complainant-respondent in this case had got a PCO from the Telecome Department in June, 1995. De hors of any details suffice it to mention that there was some outstanding payment of the PCO from the complainant which he failed to deposit with the Telecom Department and vide notice dated 12.12.1997, the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 49,388. Out of this demand, certain amount was deposited on different dates by the complainant, however, the fact remains that the entire amount as demanded by the Telecom Department was not paid. Resultantly, the telephone connection at his residence bearing No. 352893 was disconnected which led the complainant to file a complaint which has been allowed by the District Forum vide impugned order.
3. The District Forum on the basis of National Commission judgment in The General Manager, Madras Telephones & Ors. v. R. Kannan, I (1994) CPJ 14 (NC), came to the conclusion that the PCO holder is a franchise holder of Telecom Department and is only licensee of the Telecom Department. It was observed in the said authority that the franchise holder performs two functions: (a) establishes and runs a public call office; and (b) collects the call charges on behalf of the Department and he cannot be held to be a subscriber under the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in fact as per the definition under Rule 2(pp), the complainant would fall under the definition of a ‘subscriber’ because telephone as PCO was installed under an agreement. Counsel further submitted that as per Rule 443, if there are two telephone connections in the name of one subscriber, then in case of non-payment of outstanding bills of any one of the telephones, the other can also be disconnected. Rule 2(pp) and Rule 443 of 1951 Rules is in the following terms:
“2(pp) ‘subscriber’ means a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by means of an installation under these rules or under an agreement.”
“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 rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, an
