NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(Against the
order dated 31.05.2005 in Appeals No.465 of 2003 and 296 of 2005 of the State
Commission, Tamil Nadu)
No. 12 (Old No. 22)
Gulam Abbas Ali Khan
Thousand Lights,
Chennai
600 006.
Vs.
The Deputy
General Manager (NW) Respondent
Chennai
Telephones
52, EVK Sampath Salia
Chennai
600 007.
The Commercial
Officer (NW)
Chennai
Telephones
52, EVK Sampath Salai
Chennai
600 007.
BEFORE:
MR ANUPAM DASGUPTA,
MEMBER
For the
Respondent Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate
Shri Vipin Nair, Advocate
Dated
This
Revision Petition seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 31st May 2005 of
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu (hereafter referred to the State
Commission) in Appeals No. 465 / 2003 and 296 / 2004, by which the State
Commission set aside the order dated 26th February 2003 of the District Forum,
Chennai (North). In its aforesaid order, the District Forum had directed the
Opposite Parties (Deputy General Manager (
Facts:
2. Briefly,
the facts of this case are as under:
(a)
on
(b)
Their main contention is that the Complainant
failed to pay the arrears of rent for his telephone connection, which is why
the reconnection of the telephone was delayed. In particular, it is contended
that (i) the Complainant did not enclose a copy of
the latest bill dated 16th May 2001, duly paid, when he applied for
reconnection on 21st May 2001; (ii) he paid the bill dated 16th May 2001 on 16th
July 2001 and that dated 16th July 2001 on 5th August 2001 but (iii) he did not
pay the supplementary bill dated 17th December 2001 in spite of reminders.
(c)
On
the other hand, the complainant has contended that (i)
he did not receive the bill dated 16th May, 2001 before 21st May 2001; (ii) he
had paid all the bills, up to that of 16.03.2001, regularly but had to
personally go to the office of the opposite parties to obtain copies of the
bills of the periods thereafter which he paid with the hope that it would
expedite the process of reconnection of his telephone at the new place of his
residence; (iii) the supplementary bill of 17.12.2001 was an afterthought of
the opposite parties and he had paid all the amounts in that bill earlier; (iv)
the non-restoration of his new telephone connection was delayed because the
Assistant Engineer concerned did not issue the necessary certificate of
disconnection; and that (v) if the connection of the opposite parties about
non-payment of the past bills by the complainant was indeed correct, there was
no reason for them to suddenly reverse that stand and restore the telephone
connection with a new number in April, 2002. The complainant has also drawn
attention repeatedly to his age (75 years in 2001) and the fact that in May
2001, the case was not of an inter-State transfer of his telephone connection
but one of transfer from one locality of Chennai city to another (the transfer
of his telephone connection from Nellore, Andhra
Pradesh to Chennai having taken place in September 2000). Finally, the
complainant has contended that the State Commission did not at all take into
account the findings of the District Forum on the points of fact, which the
Forum had gone into in detail after considering the averments on affidavit of both
the parties and the documents produced before the Forum and it was on that
basis that the Forum had passed order in the complainant’s favour.
Findings:
3. On
perusal of the records of the case, we find substance in the contentions of the
complainant. The State Commission has wrongly relied on the contentions of the
opposite parties about non-payment of dues/ bills by the complainant. It has
also wrongly concluded that this was a case of inter-State transfer of the
complainant’s telephone connection. It
has further erred in not at all considering the detailed reasoning recorded by
the District Forum in its judgment and order, finding deficiency in service by
a large and important service provider like the Chennai Telephones in respect
of a senior citizen of over 75 years of age and also a patient of cardiac
disease.
4. The
copies of the bills enclosed with the supplementary complaint filed by the
complainant before the District Forum on 01.04.2002 reveals the facts, in the
context of the letter dated 26.02.2002 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant and sent to him at his old address, of prior to May 2001. By
producing a photocopy of his applications dated 21.05.2001, duly endorsed by
some officer of the opposite parties, the complainant has shown beyond doubt
that the opposite parties had acknowledged this application for shifting. This
application clearly mentioned the new address to which the complainant was
shifting. Hence, there was no reason for the opposite parties to send the
letter of 26.02.2002 to the complainant’s old address. In the above-mentioned
supplementary complaint, the complainant has also dealt in detail with the
amounts payable, as claimed by the opposite parties, on account of the alleged
arrears of rentals of the telephone connection since the inter-State transfer
of the telephone (on 12.09.2000) to 28.02.2001. He has clarified how and when
he paid each of these amounts. He has also rightly contended that the bills of
10.09.2001, 10.11.2001 and 10.01.2002, claiming payment of arrears of rental
for the telephone connection, were not payable because the telephone had been
disconnected as long backs as on 21.05.2001 and not restored till April, 2002.
5. The
complainant has further shown that while the appeal of the opposite parties was
pending before the State Commission, they approached the High Court of Chennai
and obtained a stay against the District Forum’s order of payment of Rs.6000/-
to the complainant. This was despite the fact that the Counsel for the opposite
parties had earlier given a written assurance to the District Forum to pay the
said amount to the complainant, as ordered by the Forum. This is indeed
harassment of a senior citizen by a service provider like the Chennai
Telephones.
In
view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the order dated
The
revision petition is allowed accordingly.
…………………………..J
[ M B Shah ]
…………………………..
[ Anupam Dasgupta ]
Member