State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brij Kishan Gujrati vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 27 July, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 27-07-2006 Complaint Case No. C-31/1995 Shri Brij Kishan Gujrati Complainant 1766, Kucha Latto Shah, Through Dariba Kalan, Mr. J.S. Chauhan, Delhi. Advocate. Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Respondent Kidwai Bhawan, Through New Delhi. Mr. V.K. Sardana, Representative. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant applied for a telephone connection under N-OYT (G) category vide application dated 08-03-1983 for installation at his residence No. 1766M Kucha Lattoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. When the complainant did not get telephone connection till February, 1987 as he required the telephone at his residence on account of illness of his mother, he applied for another telephone connection in OYT (G) category vide application dated 10-03-1987 on priority basis after depositing the requisite fees of Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly telephone No. 268469 in OYT (G) against application dated 10-03-1987 was allotted on 16th October, 1987.
2. According to the complainant N-OYT (G) category telephone applied vide application dated 08-03-1983 was never allotted to him. But he received a letter dated 17-11-1995 from the OP raising a bill for Rs. 6,08,649/- against telephone No. 6463327, which telephone was never allotted to him. In the bill it was also mentioned if the payment was not made the telephone No. 268469 allotted on priority basis vide application dated 16-08-1987 shall be disconnected.
3. Through this complaint the complainant has sought quashing of the said bill.
The aforesaid bill, according to him, is against the telephone which was never installed at his residence and was never used by him nor had he ever received sanction letter in the form of OB in respect of said telephone.
4. On the contrary the OPs version is that the complainant himself requested the OP to transfer and install the said telephone after it was hypothetically allotted in Jangpura to East of Kailash. As per request of the complainant the OP transferred and installed the said telephone at F-1/A, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Though the telephone was installed at East of Kailash, as per the request of the complainant but in the directory, instead of Gujrati Brij Kishan, F-1/A, East of Kailash, it was shown as Gujral Brij Kishan, F-1/A, East of Kailash-110065 which appears to be a printing mistake and as no correction was asked for by the complainant the same was carried in the subsequent directory published by the OP.
5. According to the OP as per rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules it has the right to disconnect the other telephone No. 3269469 installed at the residence of the complainant for non-payment of outstanding bill of any other telephone standing in the name of the same consumer. The telephone No.6463327 was installed at East of Kailash in the name of the complainant and he is liable to make the payment of bill against telephone No. 6463327. OP denied that they have misused and fabricated the initial deposit of booking of telephone dated 08-08-1983.
6. In response, the complainant vehemently denied that he had ever requested the OP to transfer and install the alleged telephone after it was opened hypothetically in Jungpura to East of Kailash.
He also denied that as per his alleged request, OP transferred and installed the alleged telephone to East of Kailash and allotted the telephone number as 6463327. It seems that officials of the OP in collusion with unauthorised person got the paper forged and installed the telephone in different places just to cover up their mistakes. That the OP has failed to specify the number of telephone allotted in Jungpura by the Department. The OP has also not stated when it was hypothetically installed. The complainant had no knowledge about opening of hypothetically or transfer of alleged telephone from Jungpura to East of Kailash at all . That the complainant only came to know about the manipulation by the officials of the OP on 20-02-1995 when he made enquiries from the Telephone Exchange and other persons.
7. Further that the complainant has no concern either with premises No. A-13, Jangpura, Double Storey, New Delhi or premises NO. F-1/A East of Kailash, New Delhi.
That no allotment letter either in respect of telephone bearing No. 625538 (Jorbagh Exchange) or of telephone NO. 6463327 (Nehru Place Exchange) was ever received by the complainant. He has been living in his own house bearing No. 1766, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 since his birth and his parents were also living in this house. He or any of his family members had never any connection with premises No. A-13, Jangpura, New Delhi or F-1/A, Basement, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
8. That on enquiry he came to know that the officials of the OP had installed telephone bearing No. 6463327 at Basement in premises No. F-1/A, East of Kailash and it was used by some Goldie Films. This Goldie Films has been carrying on business of selling Video Cassettes in the name of Shine Star in the above said premises. The complainant had no concern or relation to the alleged Goldie Films.
The collusion of the officials of the OP is apparent to the fact that after installation of telephone number 6463327 at F-1/A (Basement), East of Kailash, New Delhi no telephone bill was given or paid by the consumer when it rose to even Rs. 6,08,649/-. In August, 1992 it was disconnected. It has come to the notice of the complainant that the consumer had shifted from Basement of the premises No. F-1/A, East of Kailash, New Delhi to some other unknown place.
9. We had accorded our careful consideration to the rival claims. The explanation given by the OP without production of the original record does not inspire confidence at all. Rather, it shows their grossest kind of deficiency in service as the telephone at East of Kailash being used by one Goldie Films was allowed to function for seven long years till the bill rose to Rs. 6,08,649/-.
Could it have happened without the connivance of the unscrupulous staff of OP? Certainly not. It is not understandable as why the OP has not produced the application made by the complainant requesting OP to transfer and install the alleged telephone from Jangpura to East of Kailash. Complainant is not concerned with the premises at East of Kailash. OP has failed to establish any link of the complainant with the premises at East of Kailash. OP has even not produced the record to prove the number of telephone allotted to him at Jangpura and the date on which it was installed hypothetically. The application for installation was made in the year 1983.
Had the telephone been installed at Jangpura hypothetically the complainant would have been informed about the installation of such a telephone whereas in application made in the year 1983 the address for installation of telephone given was that of Dariba Kalan.
10. It appears that when the matter came to light after seven long years that the telephone at East of Kailash premises had been misused by the occupant thereof and the bill had accumulated to about 6 lacs or so suddenly the OPs officials fabricated directory mentioning the name of the complainant as the subscriber of telephone No. 6463327. It appears that the OP has taken undue advantage of the name of the complainant as he is the namesake of a person who had been using the premises at East of Kailash.
Complainants name is Brij Kishan Gujrati whereas the bill in respect of telephone No. 6463327 installed at the premises of East of Kailash was shown against Brij Kishan Gujral.
11. Since the OP has not been successful in establishing any kind of link either by way of application for installation of the telephone at the East of Kailash address for transfer of the telephone allotted hypothetically from Jangpura it does not stand to reason that why for seven long years the department did not take any action for non-payment of the bill and woke up only when the subscriber left the premises at East of Kailash and the bill accumulated to Rs. 6,08,649/-.
12. The OP has also not been able to prove any kind of connection of the business of Goldie Films that was being run from the premises F-1/A, East of Kailash with the complainant. The complainant had applied for telephone at Dariba Kalan but to say it was hypothetically allotted at Jangpura is difficult to digest. So much so the OP had not been even able to show any mischief of the complainant that the telephone numbers used in that telephone had any connection with his business friends or relatives. It was for the OP to find out that if there was any nexus between the complainant and occupant of F-1/A East of Kailash by enquiring the telephone numbers used from the telephone at his residence and the numbers used from the East of Kailash telephone.
Complainant has even not established an iota of link with the business of the complainant at either Jangpura or the premises at East of Kailash.
13. OP has miserably failed to prove nexus or any proof that this telephone was ever allotted to the complainant or installed at his residence or installed at the Jangpura address at the request of the complainant or was transferred to East of Kailash on the request of the complainant. The cumulative effect of these facts and circumstances make out a case of grossest kind of deficiency in service not only in fabricating and manipulating the record but also slapping a bill on a wrong person and that too of the huge amount of Rs. 6,08,649/- without establishing the fact whether the telephone has ever used by the complainant or for his business partners for any other purpose.
It is not the case that the complainant was at any point of time occupying premises at Jangpura or F-1/A of East of kailash and had left the premises.
14. In the result, we allow the complaint and quash the bill raised by the OP towards telephone No.6463327 against the complainant and direct the OP to restore the telephone in the name of the complainant at Dariba Kalan forthwith if there are no dues against him.
15. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
17. Announced on the 27th July, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj