1. THE complaint giving rise to this appeal was filed by Consumer Rights Society (Regd.) and Smt. Darshana Devi. THE case of the complainants was that telephone No. 7291554 was installed at the residence of complainant No. 2 on 23.4.1992. THE telephone became dead on 8.8.1992 and inspite of several complaints in writing as well as by personal visits, the telephone was not set right. THE complainant sent complaints in writing dated 8.8.1992, 14.8.1992, 5.9.1992, 10.9.1992 and 22.9.1992. Ultimately the complainant also failed to receive any bill and when she contacted the official concerned she was informed that the first bill of a new connection was generally issued in about one year. THE complainant, therefore, kept waiting for receiving the telephone bill. Ultimately she collected a ''duplicate bill sometimes prior to 1.10.1993. THE bill contained rental for the period 8.8.1992 till the date of the bill, even though the telephone had been lying dead since 8.8.1992 and had not been set right inspite of repeated complaints made in this behalf. THE complainant contacted the opposite party''s office on 1.10.1993 and also made a written application for revising the bill by deleting the rental from 8.8.1992 onwards till the telephone was set right. THE opposite party neither set right the telephone, nor the bill was corrected, nor any reply was sent to the complainant for her aforesaid application. THE complainant got sent legal notice dated 22.2.1994 and filed the present complaint in May, 1994. It was from the reply filed by MTNL before the District Forum that the complainant came to know that the telephone in question had been disconnected on the ground of non-payment of bill on 28.12.1992. THE categorical case of the complainant was that she never received any bill and there was thus no question of non-payment of the same. Further case of the complainant was that no notice for disconnection of the telephone was ever served by the opposite party on her and the disconnection was, therefore, illegal.
2. THE case was contested. On a consideration of the material before it. District Forum-I observed that if the complainant failed to receive the bill she should have enquired about the same and she could obtain a duplicate bill. It was further observed that even after securing a duplicate bill in 1993, the complainant failed to deposit the amount and accordingly the complaint merited no consideration and the same was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order, the complainants have preferred this appeal.
None appeared on either side when the appeal was called on for hearing.
3. ON our request, Mr. S. Patt Joshi, Advocate, a panel Lawyer of MTNL assisted us even though he was not representing the respondent in this appeal. Reference to our order recorded in the order-sheet sometimes in September, 1995 shows that in another appeal it was contended that leaving aside me preventions of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, it was expressly stated on the reverse side of the bill that before disconnection, the Department would issue a registered notice in writing regarding payment of the bill. It was contended that the said condition operated as a estoppel assuming that the aforesaid rule laid-down that no separate notice before disconnection was necessary. The parties were called upon to place material on record whether the bill in question or a proforma of the bill issued by the said Exchance about the material time contained such a printed condition. Copies of some other bills relating to February, 1993 have been placed on record. ON the back side of the bill, the following condition has been printed :
"A written reminder in the form of Registered Notice will, however, be issued before disconnection. A sum of Rs. 10/- will be charged towards this service".
Mr. Patt Joshi stated that for the case in question the said printed condition continued to appear even though there were circular instructions to omit that condition. It follows that in the present case it was incumbent on the respondent to have issued a registered notice before disconnecting the telephone on the ground of alleged non- payment. It cannot be disputed that no notice was given.In the nature of things, the subscriber is entitled to receive the bill. This is specially so as non-payment of the bill can lead to disconnection of the telephone. In the present case, the respondent failed to show that bill had been served on the appellant during the relevant period. In the absence of the bill, there was no question of disconnection on the ground of non- payment.
4. ON the material available on record, it cannot be disputed that the telephone remained dead since 8.8.1992. It has not been controverted that the complainant sent five complaints in writing besides personal visits to have the telephone set right. None of the complaints was replied to nor was the telephone set right. The respondent is, therefore, not entitled to claim any rental from 8.8.1992 till the telephone is restored. Failure to set right the telephone, correct the bill by deleting the claim for rental from 8.8.1992 till the telephone was set right and failure to reply to any one of the complaints made by the complainant as well as failure to serve the telephone bills, constituted deficiency in service. The District Forum adversely commented on the failure of the complainant in depositing the bill after obtaining its duplicate copy. The approach of the District Forum on this point cannot be approved. The claim of the complainant was to revise the bill, duplicate whereof had been secured some times before October, 1993 by deleting the rental for the period for which the telephone had remained dead and had not been set right inspite of repeated complaints. This was, therefore, not a case in which the complainant had failed to pay the bill; this was rather a case where the respondent failed to correct the bill by deleting rental for the period the telephone remained dead and was not set right despite repeated complaints. We are also clearly of the view that it is the duty of the respondent to serve a bill on the subscriber because non-payment of bill can result in disconnection of the telephone and before disconnection a notice as printed on the reverse side of the bill was required to be sent but was not given to the complainant. It was, therefore, not the duty of the complainant to have secured a duplicate bill. She was justified in waiting for the telephone bill especially when she had been informed by an official of the Department that the first bill in the case of a new telephone generally took one year to issue. We, therefore, do not agree with the observations made by the District Forum that it was the duty of the complainant to have secured the duplicate bill.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, order of the District Forum-I is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall take immediate steps to restore the telephone in question, rectify the defect and make the telephone functional. The respondent is further directed to charge rental for the period 8.8.1994 till the date of restoration as the telephone has not been made functional during the said period. The respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to complainant No. 2 as compensation for the mental agony, harrassment and hardship suffered by her.
This order shall be complied within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order. A copy of the order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-I. Appeal allowed.
