State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Dolly Banerjee vs S.E.D. Telecom Burdwan & Others on 10 November, 2009
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN
(GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD,
ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/134
DATE OF FILING :
31.03.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
10.11.2009
APPELLANT
Smt. Dolly Banerjee
Wife of Sri Asutosh Banerjee
61, Anita Cinema Lane
Post Office, Police Station & District
Burdwan.
RESPONDENTS
1. S.E.D Telecom Burdwan
(EXTL East) Telephone Exchange, BSNL
Co. Ltd.
G.T.Road, Burdwan.
2. Divisional Engineer Telegraph
Burdwan, Division, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd.
Burdwan Telephone Bhawan
G.T.Road, Burdwan.
3. Mr. Harishikesh Banik
Son of Late Gopal Chandra Banik
61, Anita Cinema Lane
Post Office, Police Station &
District Burdwan.
4. Mrs. Bannya Banik
Wife of Sri Harishikesh Banik
61, Anita Cinema Lane
Post Office, Police Station &
District Burdwan.
5. Mr. Ashim Banerjee
S/o Mr. Manoranjan Banerjee
At Pilkhana Lane
Post Office, Police Station &
District Burdwan.
BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. R.K.Chaumal, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT /
O.P.S.: Mrs. J.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate
(Res.1&2)
Mr. Harishikesh Banik personally for
himself & Res. 4.
: O R D E R :
MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER This Appeal arose out of judgement and order dt.
18.3.09 in DCDRF, Burdwan, Case No. 129/2007 where Smt. Dolly Banerjee, the complainants case was that the OP/Respondent Nos. 1, & 2 namely, S.E.D. Telecom, Burdwan and Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, disconnected her telephone connection already installed at Premises No. 61, Anita Cinema Lane, Post Office, Police Station and District Burdwan, which supposedly was disconnected on the basis of an application for closure/surrender of the given telephone stated to have been signed by the complainant, Smt. Banerjee, which fact was disputed stating that the given application was spurious and thus, the complaint seeking restoration of the said telephone connection at the given location. On the basis of an interim order under number 3 dt. 21.8.07 the Ops were directed to restore the said connection within 7 days which was complied with and the telephone line is in working order.
Subsequently, the Ops entered appearance and filed written version and the BSNL authorities submitted that they had no normal reason to disbelieve the supposed disconnection application on part of the complainant and acted accordingly and, therefore, they have no deficiency in service whatsoever. Mr. Harishikesh Banik and Mrs. Bannya Banik, OP Nos. 3 & 4, stated that the complainant was not a tenant of the OP Nos. 3 & 4 and the house rent receipt provided by the complainant in regard to obtaining her telephone connection was forged and, therefore, she had no merit on the complaint.
The matter was heard from respective sides when the Ld. Forum passed its judgement and order as under :-
That the case be rejected on contest. The order dt. 21.07.07 be vacated. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 will disconnect the telephone connection in the disputed premises of the complainant after expiry of one month from this date of order.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order the Appellant namely Smt. Dolly Banerjee, the complainant in the Forum, filed this Appeal and stated inter alia that the Ld. Forum below had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the right title, interest or status of the Appellant in respect of the disputed premises, which is a subject matter of determination by a competent civil court only and there is no such pronouncement so far. As for the existing telephone connection the Appellant had, was disconnected on a false and concocted application seeking disconnection, which position was since remedied by an interim order of the Ld. Forum below and the line is continuing to be in existence and in order.
Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below and also prayed for further suitable orders, if any.
The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 namely the telecom authorities, entered appearance and submitted that no doubt they had disconnected the telephone on the basis of an application seeking disconnection supposedly made by the Appellant/Complainant, but subsequent to the interim order of the Ld. Forum below the telephone line was restored. As for seeking No-objection certificate/Current house rent bill from the landlord, it was maintained that this is usual procedure resorted to at some periodicity and there was nothing exceptional about this process.
The Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 namely Mr. Harishikesh Bank and Mrs. Bannya Banik, submitted that the Appeal should be rejected in the light of the fact that the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission has no jurisdiction for new telephone connection and also because the Appellant/Complainant failed to prove her status as to her being a tenant or a landlord or licensee or leaseholder.
Referring to litigation pending in Civil Court the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 contended that the Appellant/Complainant had illegally occupied one shop-room in the three-storied premises at the address and she was enjoying an illegal landline which was since converted into broadband and such being the position, the Appeal should be dismissed.
DISCUSSION A. Admittedly, the Appellant/Complainant had one telephone connection at an occupied portion of the premises which was later sought to be disconnected on her application, which later turned out to be concocted and false in not having her genuine signature or handwriting. On her prayer and subsequent to interim order of the Ld. Forum below the given telephone connection was restored and was still functioning in order. In the final order the Ld. Forum below of course directed for disconnection of the said line rejecting the case of the complainant holding inter alia that the Consumer Forum had no authority to give telephone connection to the parties.
B. We have carefully gone through the records and find that the case of the complainant was not for giving new telephone connection, but for trying to set right a mischief played upon her by unknown sources when one application for disconnection of the said telephone line was filed before the telephone authorities, which, according to the Appellant/Complainant, did neither bear her signature or her handwriting nor she had any intention to such effect. The Ld. Forum below in terms of the prayer of the complainant passed an interim order for restoration of the said telephone on set of given fact and the telephone line was restored, rental and other charges in respect of which are continued to be paid regularly. In that view, the Ld. Forum below had no legal justification to go into sub-judice matter as to the terms of tenancy of the Appellant, on which established legal provision is that so long the Appellant is not evicted/divested of her occupied portion of the premises, the existing rights and privileges enjoyed by the Appellant/complainant cannot be disturbed or taken away. As for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2s seeking of current rent receipt/No-objection Certificate from the Appellant/complainant, the Ld. Lawyer representing the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could not cite any provision of law or rules thereunder authorizing such authority or steps. In that view, this was an extraordinary effort on Respondent Nos. 1 & 2s part beyond the provisions of law amounting to an element of deficiency of service. As for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4s contention on terms of tenancy and/or litigation in Civil Court, the same having reached no finality, the status quo is not liable to be disturbed.
C. In such regard the citations referred to by the Appellant/Complainant as under C.O. No. 14485 (w) of 1983 Pushpa Rani Ghose Vs. Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas & others are very pertinent and we rely on the same. We also take note of the judgement and order passed by the same Ld. Forum in D.F. Case No. 116 of 2007 where in almost similar set of ground condition and fact the Ld. Forum below passed its final order as under that the case be allowed on contest. O.P., BSNL is restrained from disconnecting the telephone connection of the PCO in the disputed premises, so long the complainant is rented from the said premises and so long he makes payment of the rental charge and so long he complies with other rules and regulation of the Telephone Act., which is absolutely contrary to the judgement and order passed in this case.
Accordingly, we hold that the Appeal is liable to be allowed on contest without cost and the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside.
O R D E R Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost. The impugned judgement is set aside. The existing telephone line enjoyed by the Appellant/Complainant cannot be disturbed so long the litigations in the Civil Court do not reach the finality with specific direction on the continuity of the said telephone line or otherwise.
MEMBER MEMBER