State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Manager, B.S.N.L. Bharat ... vs Anjani K. Rana on 9 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.5 of 2009
Date of institution : 2.1.2009
Date of decision : 9.1.2012
1. The General Manager, B.S.N.L. Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.
2. S.D.O., B.S.N.L., Rishi Nagar Branch, Ludhiana.
3. The Xen, B.S.N.L., Rishi Nagar Branch, Ludhiana.
.......Appellants
Versus
Anjani K. Rana, Advocate, Resident of 294-295, G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, Near
New Income Tax Office, Ludhiana.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 26.11.2008 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the respondent:
Anjali K. Rana respondent applied for landline telephone connection to the appellants vide application bearing receipt No.053013664 and deposited Rs.500/- on 14.12.2007. The appellants allotted telephone connection bearing No.2306421. The officials of the appellants came to install the telephone connection but they refused to install the same on the ground that some amount was outstanding against the above said address. However when the application was submitted by the respondent to the appellants, he was assured that telephone would be installed within a period of 7 days but till date the telephone connection has not been installed.First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 2
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent was not a defaulter nor any litigation was pending against the respondent nor the appellants had communicated if any amount was outstanding against this address. Rather they had accepted the application submitted by the respondent along with the initial fee of Rs.500/-.
3. It was further pleaded if any amount was outstanding against the same address, it was the duty of the appellants to inform the respondent and they should not have accepted the application of the respondent. Refusal to install the telephone connection has caused mental tension and agony to the respondent and his reputation has been lowered. The respondent had also sent legal notice by registered A.D. post dated 31.12.2007 but neither it has been replied nor telephone connection has been provided to the respondent. Hence the complaint seeking direction against the appellants to provide the telephone connection. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
Version of the appellants:
4. The appellants filed the written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded that the respondent has not come to the court with clean hands nor the complaint was maintainable. The respondent has suppressed material and relevant facts. It was within the knowledge of the respondent that his father Lal Chand was having a telephone connection No. 2304496 (old No.2477496) and an arrear amount of Rs.695/- was outstanding against him. This telephone connection in the name of Lal Chand was installed in premises No.294/295 G Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. This telephone was operated by the father of the respondent from 15.3.1997 to 22.11.2004. As per the rules of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication vide office order dated 9.7.1999, new telephone connection cannot be installed if any amount was outstanding pertaining to any telephone in the name of the applicant or his First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 3 relatives or associates installed in the same premises in which the new telephone connection is to be installed. Therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
5. It was not denied that the respondent had submitted the application and had deposited the installation fee of Rs.500/- on 14.12.2007 with the appellants. It was also admitted that the appellants had provisionally allotted landline telephone No.2306421 to the respondent at the time of booking of the new telephone connection but the same was not yet installed. The instructions issued by the Government of India vide order dated 9.7.1999 are applicable and since the arrears were outstanding against the previous telephone connection which was in the name of the father of the respondent, therefore, the new telephone connection could not be installed in the same premises till the payment of that amount.
6. It was further pleaded that in the present case on the receipt of application No.RBN 45873 dated 14.12.2007 in the name of Anjani K. Rana (respondent) son of Lal Chand Rana, resident of 294/295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana before the installation of new telephone connection it was verified and it was found that telephone No.2304496 (old No.2477496) was working in the name of the father of the respondent and it was closed due to non-payment of the arrears of Rs.695/- for which Lal Chand was defaulter. Since the respondent is seeking the new telephone connection in the same premises, therefore, new telephone connection cannot be installed till the arrears are cleared. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Proceedings before the District Forum:
7. The respondent filed his affidavit as Ex.CW-1. He also proved documents Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/C.
8. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Baldev Raj, Divisional Engineer, Phones (Legal) as Ex.RW1/A. The appellants also proved First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 4 the instructions dated 9.7.1999 as Ex.R-1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7.
9. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- vide impugned order dated 26.11.2008 and the appellants were directed to install telephone connection in the residential premises of the respondent within 30 days.
10. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the father of the respondent was having telephone connection in the same premises and since the said telephone connection was disconnected as he was a defaulter, therefore, new telephone connection cannot be installed in the same premises. It was further pleaded that the respondent had not served any notice on the appellants under Rule 416 of the Telegraph Rules. Therefore the complaint was not maintainable. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 be set aside.
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the appellants had no right to refuse the installation of telephone connection when the respondent had already submitted the application on that behalf and had submitted the installation fee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported as "Aseem v. Union of India" 2003(3)RCR(Civil) 14. Hence it was prayed that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. The respondent has given his residential address as 294-295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, near Income Tax Office, Ludhiana. The application submitted by the respondent to the appellants for installation of telephone connection has been proved by the appellants as Ex.R-2. This application also reveals that the First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 5 respondent seeks the installation of telephone connection in House No.294-295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, near New Income Tax Office, Ludhiana. The appellants have also proved the driving licence of the respondent as Ex.R-3. He is shown as son of Lal Chand and his residential address is shown 294-95, Block Rishi Nagar, Chhoti Haibowal, Ludhiana.
15. The appellants have also proved the application form which was submitted by Lal Chand (father of the respondent) as Ex.R-4 in which address of Lal Chand was shown as 294-95, ZG, Balmik Nagar, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana. The appellants have also proved the demand note No.MB/Gen/4822 dated 27.8.1998 as Ex.R-5 which was sent to Lal Chand Koundal, House No.294-95, ZG, Balmik Nagar, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana. The appellants have also proved the document dated 3.5.1997 as Ex.R-6 according to which telephone connection No.477496 was installed in House No.294-295, Block Z, RBN, Ludhiana on 15.3.1997. The appellants have also proved the subscriber's record card as Ex.R-7 according to which telephone connection No.477496 installed in the name of Lal Chand in House No.294-295, G-Z, RBN which shows that an amount of Rs.915/- was outstanding against Lal Chand and he was held to be a defaulter.
16. The address where the telephone connection in the name of Lal Chand (father of the respondent) was installed is House No.294-295 G, Block-Z, RBN. The respondent has shown his address as House No.294-295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, near New Income Tax Office, Ludhiana. The house number in which Lal Chand had got installed the telephone connection is 294-295, Z-G and the house number in which the respondent also wants to get the telephone connection installed is 294-295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, Near New Income Tax Office, Ludhiana. House number is the same in which Lal Chand had the telephone connection and for which respondent had also applied for telephone connection. Lal Chand had mentioned remaining address as Balmik Nagar, Haibowal Khurd, First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 6 Ludhiana while the respondent has shown his address as Rishi Nagar, Near New Income Tax Office, Ludhiana. In the driving licence of the respondent Ex.R-3, the address is mentioned as House No.294-295, Block Rishi Nagar, Chhoti Haibowal, Ludhiana. Therefore the house number is same. Rishi Nagar is the same. G-Z is the same but the remaining part of the address is different. It could be because of new development or that the Income Tax Office might have been opened near the house of the respondent. Since the house number and the area (Rishi Nagar) is the same where telephone connection in the name of Lal Chand was installed and the house in which telephone connection is sought by the respondent. Therefore, it appears that the respondent is seeking telephone connection in the same premises in which the telephone connection was held by his father Lal Chand.
17. The appellants have proved the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications as Ex.R1. It reads as under:-
"Subject: Refusal of New Telephone Connection to relative or associate living on/working from the same premises as a subscriber defaulting on payment of dues.
Some Telecom Circles have requested this office to issue instructions /guidelines to defend the refusal of new telephone connections to the relatives/partners on the same premises of defaulters who fail to pay their telephone dues. The matter has been examined in depth in this office. It has been observed that telephone subscribers who have heavy dues outstanding try to avoid payments by applying for a new telephone connection in the name of a relative or partner on the same premises. On refusal of a new telephone connection to relatives of such defaulter subscribers, the applicants moved consumer courts for obtaining a new telephone connection.First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 7
2. Para 43 (ii) of the Telecom Manual, Vol. XII Part I, already envisages that persons having a nexus with the defaulting subscriber may not be given a phone connection otherwise it will facilitate the defaulter in his attempts to defraud the Department. The matter was placed before the Telecom Commission, which considered it in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble Courts in similar cases. The Telecom Commission has accordingly decided:
"A new telephone connection or telex connection may be refused to any relative or an associate living on or working from the same premises as that of a defaulting telephone subscriber. The new connection may, however, be released to the applicant if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding due along with penalty, as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority."
3. The above decision of the Telecom Commission may please be implemented, it will cause the applicant for the new telephone also to bear upon the defaulting relation/associate to clear his outstanding dues. The spirit behind this order is to prohibit the defaulter from getting a new phone in some other name and avoid payment of genuine dues and NOT to prevent an NTC being given to a genuine aspirant. The above decision is to be applied with the utmost care to avoid undue harassment to genuine customers.
4. The term 'premises' for this purpose refers to the same house/office including its annexe. The 'associate' for the purpose may include partners, directors, proprietors of a company, firm, society, association etc. 'Relative' may include husband/wife and blood relations, for example, parents, son/daughter (including step son/step daughter), in laws, members of the HUF, son or daughter First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 8 of a predeceased son, daughter in law, son-in-law, brother's wife, sister's husband etc. A legally separated husband and wife on separate premises should not be denied the new connection for default by the former spouse.
The decision to refuse a new telephone connection to the relative/associate who has a nexus with the defaulting subscriber should be taken by an officer not below the level of SSA head."
18. It is, therefore, clear that no new telephone connection can be provided if the previous arrears are not cleared.
19. In Aseem's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent the son was seeking telephone connection in a different premises while the father was a defaulter relating to a telephone connection in different premises. Therefore this judgment is not applicable. Moreover this judgment has no significance when the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the contrary.
20. In this circumstance reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as "Surjit Singh v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd." AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2226. The facts of the reported judgment are given in para 3 and 4 as under:-
"3. The facts of the case are that the appellant and his wife are living together at their residence in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. At that residence, there is one telephone line bearing No.5121187 in the name of appellant Surjit Singh and there is also another telephone line bearing No.5416493 at the same residence in the name of the appellant's wife. There is a third telephone line bearing No.3265301 in the name First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 9 of the appellant and installed at the business premises of the appellant at 1195, Chahrahat Building, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
4. It appears that there were arrears of telephone dues in connection with line No.5416493 which was in the name of the telephone dues in connection with this line, the other two lines in the name of the appellant being 5121187 at his residential premises and line No.3265301 at his business premises were disconnected."
21. The contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in this case was also raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reproduced in para 5 of the judgment as under:-
"5. The contention of the appellant was that the telephone lines in his own name being line No.5121187 at his residence and line No.3265301 at his business premises should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of dues in connection with the line in the name of his wife being line No.5416493. He contended that he and his wife are two separate legal entities, and he could not be penalized for the fault of his wife."
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court also interpreted Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules and reached the following conclusion:-
"28. In our opinion, in the present case, we have to adopt the Lakshana (or Linga) rule of interpretation rather than the Shruti or Abidha (the literal) rule. In other words, Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rule has First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 10 to be interpreted in a purposive sense. Hence the telephone line in the name of the person who is really paying the bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of another person who is economically dependent on the former can be disconnected for non- payment of bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of the latter. Such an interpretation would effectuate the intention of Rule 443, which is that telephone bills should be paid promptly.
29. Also, it would make no difference whether the telephone line is at the residence or at the business premises, even if the two are entirely separate. Hence in our opinion both the telephone lines in the name of the appellant, one at his residence and the other at his business premises, can be disconnected for non- payment of the dues in connection with the line in the name of his dependent wife."
23. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh's case (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.
24. The telephone was installed in House No.294-295 G, Block-Z, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana in the name of Lal Chand (father of the respondent). He had failed to pay the arrears of the telephone bill by which the telephone was disconnected. Now the respondent wants to have a new telephone connection in the same premises without making the payment of the previous bill and the appellants are rightly insisting that the new telephone connection can be granted to the respondent only if he makes the payment of previous arrears standing on the telephone connection in the same premises which was in the name of his father.
First Appeal No.5 of 2009. 11
25. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 is set aside.
26. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 2.1.2009. This amount of Rs.500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
27. The arguments in this case were heard on 3.1.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
January 9 , 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER