(Delivered on 21/11/2016)
PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 23/09/2002 passed by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. 132/2002, whereby award passed against the O.P. to restore within 24 hours telephone connection in respect of residential phone No. 46729 and office phone No. 46830 which were taken by the subscriber Prabhakar Gopalrao Bhaskare (complainant) .
2. The facts briefly stated are as complainant is a journalist since three years prior to filing of the complaint working for daily Tarun Bharat and weekly Janmat Rakshak. He had obtained telephone Nos. 46729 and 46830 in respect of which the bills were already paid on 22/05/2002. However, without mentioning any reason both telephone connections were without justification disconnected on 02/07/2002. The complainant had prayed by issuing notice through advocate issued on 09/07/2002 and also prayed for restoration of the connection and claimed that he had suffered harassment , damages as reputation as journalist was harmed. He had claimed sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and sum of Rs. 10,000/- toward traveling expenses to office and damages in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and for reputation in sum of Rs. 20000/-. Thus prayer was made of Rs. 50,000/- in the aggregate towards damages. It is also the case of the complainant that in respect of telephone No. 46830 it was used at S.T.D. Booth. It was fetching regular income to the complainant.
3. There is no dispute that both the telephone connection Nos. 46729 and 46830 were obtained by the complainant since last eight years prior to the complaint. The grievance of the complainant was there was no proper written notice to the complainant before phones were disconnected.
4. According to the O.P. the telephone connections obtained by the complainant were disconnected on the pretext that the son of the complainant was in arrears in respect of telephone connection obtained by him. It is also contended that the son of the complainant was subscriber who was in arrears and was economically dependent on the complainant. However, according the complainant it appears in his case that the son of the complainant is aged about 24 years and was residing independently and else were. It is under these facts and circumstances that the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that the O.P. contravened the rule No. 416(2) B (III) and also found that the rule was misused by the O.P. to disconnect the telephone connection which were not in respect of any arrears under pending bills. The learned District Consumer Forum also referred to circular bearing No. 5-2/77-PHA, dated 08/11/1977 found that the O.P. misled the Forum in respect of documents filed to justify the disconnecting the telephone connection which were obtained by the complainant. We have seen in the impugned judgment instead of granting prayer for sum of Rs.50,000/- in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded payable within 15 days. Sum of Rs, 500/- was awarded towards cost of litigation.
5. We find that though the telephone connections obtained by the complainant without issuing written notice before disconnecting the telephone connection could not have been disconnected in respect of his residence and office. Particularly when he was not in arrears of telephone bills received from the O.P. Secondly there could not have been any justification to disconnect the telephone connection of the complainant on the pretext that his son was in arrears of bills for different telephone connections obtained by his son. Under these facts and circumstances the proper and limited relief was granted by the District Consumer Forum. We do not find any valid and just ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost as respondent remained absent.
