S.C. Mohapatra, President - When an application for interim order was moved, we heard the complaint since all document have been filed and the learned Senior Standing Counsel is present.

2. Normally we would have given chance to state the case. However, on the face of it, the demand of Rs. 1,000/- security appears to be outcome of violation of principle of natural justice which amounts to negligence of Officers of Department of Telecommunication. Accordingly, complainant being deprived of use of telephone since 9.12.1992. We heard Mr. Laxmidhar Dash, learned counsel for complainant, and Mr. A.B. Mishra, Learned Senior Standing Counsel of Central Government for the opposite parties.

3. This is a complaint alleging deficiency in telephone service of the opposite parties.

4. Complainant is an Advocate. He is subscriber of Telephone bearing No. 20085 under Cuttack Exchange. Bill dated 1.8.1992 was sent to him demanding total amount of Rs. 2,247/- towards rent and call charges. Complainant paid the amount by cheque. However, he was intimated that the cheque has been dishonoured on account of insufficient fund in his account. On receipt of I information, complainant filed in his application on 8.12.1992 that his brother-in-law suddenly died and he should be allowed one week's time to pay the bill. It was stated that when he issued the cheque, he had sufficient funds in his account and possibly the bill was presented late by the department for which the money in deposit in his account might have been exhausted for the cheque being dishonoured by the bank. On this application when it was pointed out that the registered demand notice had not been received by him, a fresh demand note was issued on the very day for payment of Rs. 2,247/- and security deposit of Rs. 1,000/- on or before 9.12.1992. Complainant asserted that for heavy amount of more than Rs. 3,000/- when cash was demanded, time of one day granted is too short and unreasonable. Since the amount was not deposited, telephone was disconnected on 9.12.1992. Complainant addressed a letter dated 26.12.1992 to Telecom District Manager where it was stated that the amount of Rs. 1,759/- in the bill dated 1.8.1992 is excessive since it was in a summer vacation when the court where he is an Advocate was closed and he was absent. He requested for review of the bill since his previous bills are half the bill dated 17.8.1992. The latest bill was for Rs. 700/- only. He stated that previously he requested for disconnecting the S.T.D. but the same was found to be continuing though for some time it was not functioning. He claimed that he is a consumer of the telephone under OXT Scheme for 30 years and charge of Rs. 1,000/- in absence of notice is deficiency in service. On 21.1.1993, a lawyer's notice was sent to the District Telecom Manager in his name. Within seven days thereafter, this complaint has been filed.

5. We are conscious that copy of the complaint is to be served on opposite parties and they are entitled as of right to state their case within 30 days of service of notice. Direction under Section 14(1)(d) to opposite parties to pay compensation within that period would be in violation of the provision of statute. When this difficulty was brought to notice of leamed counsel for both parties, they agreed for hearing of the complaint so that an order can be passed which would be reasonable so that the complainant would be able to get his telephone connected. Hence without considering the question of deficiency in service or negligence, when disconnection of telephone of an Advocate is a suffering specially when he is used to it for 30 years, we considered the legal deficiencies only.

6. Deficiency is on account of demand of Security of Rs. 1,000/- for dishonour of the cheque and excess billing. We are inclined to hold that demand of security for dishonour of the cheque is a penalty in nature. For such demand, a prior notice was necessary. There should have been consideration whethe