JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President :--This is a complaint filed by complainant viz. Mrs. Homai C.P. Rana and another against M.T.N.L. alleging the deficiency in its service. Shortly stated, the facts which give rise to this consumer dispute are that the complainant No. 1 has been a subscriber of telephone bearing No. 6262282 since 17-3-1988. She has been enjoying the telephone facility of M.T.N.L. till 23-10-1992 when all of a sudden her telephone connection was disconnected for alleged non-payment of telephone bill in respect of her husbands telephone bearing No. 6269908. It is the case of complainant that her husband viz. Chand Prakash Rane had no telephone facility at his residence through telephone No. 6269908. It is therefore alleged that disconnection of her telephone facility on account of arrears of payment in respect of the non-existent telephone facility in the name of her husband has resulted into serious deficiency the service of the M.T.N.L. Bombay. It is also alleged by Mrs. Homai Rana that her husband viz. Mr. Chand Prakash Rana had applied for registration of telephone connection on 19-4-1984 from the general category. However, by another communication dated 19-7-1989 Mr. Chand Prakash Rana cancelled the same registration. It is therefore, alleged by Chand Prakash Rana that no telephone connection was installed at his residence by the M.T.N.L. and therefore no question of payment of dues of arrears arose. It is also alleged that telephone connection which was applied for by Mr. Chand Prakash Rana must have been diverted illegally by M.T.N.L. to some third party and for the non-payment of telephone bills in respect of that telephone the complainant has been made a scapegoat and her telephone was disconnected. It is alleged that the act of disconnection of complainants telephone facility is as a result of mala fide action on the part of the M.T.N.L. to cover up its own lapses and illegality. The complainant therefore, prayed that her telephone connection No. 6262282 be reconnected without charging any reconnection charges and no recovery from her of the rental charges be made and further request was made to restrain the M.T.N.L. from making a demand of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from Mr. Chand Prakash Rana. The complainant also claimed token compensation of Rs. 10/- per day from 23-10-1992 onwards for the illegal disconnection of her telephone connection. The complainants claims were opposed by M.T.N.L. by filing the written version on 13-9-1993. 2.5 lakhs from Mr. Chand Prakash Rana. The complainant also claimed token compensation of Rs. 10/- per day from 23-10-1992 onwards for the illegal disconnection of her telephone connection. The complainants claims were opposed by M.T.N.L. by filing the written version on 13-9-1993. In the written version, opposte party contended that disconnection of Mrs. Homai Ranas telephone connection was for non-payment of dues in respect of telephone No 6269908 which stood in the name of Mr. Chand Prakash Rana, husband of Mrs. Homai Rana. There are other technical objections about the maintainability of the complaint. In short, according to these opposite party Mr. Chand Prakash Rana was having telephone facility through telephone No. 6269908 and having failed to pay dues in respect of said telephone, the disconnection of Mrs. Homai Ranas telephone is justified. 2. We have heard Shri Jehangir Gai for complainant and Ms. Shah, Advocate for opposite party. 3. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also gone through the relevant documents. The crucial question which arises for our determination is whether the M.T.N.L. Bombay has proved that the telephone connection No. 6269908 was installed at the premises owned by Chand Prakash Rana. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the M.T.N.L. has installed a telephone at the residence of Chand Prakash Rana bearing No. 6269908. Ms. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf M.T.N.L. has invited our attention to the document at Exh. 35. It is the letter dated nil received by M.T.N.L. on 10-7-1989 addressed to M.T.N.L. by Chand Prakash Rana. According to Ms. Shah, the said letter is a proof that the telephone connection was installed at the premises of Chand Prakash Rana. A careful reading of that letter shows that complainant in that letter only informed the M.T.N.L. the change of address for the installation of telephone from his present address to new address, at Andheri (West), Bombay. In fact, the aforesaid letter does not conclusively prove that the telephone was installed at the premises of Chand Prakash Rana. The hollowness of the aforesaid letter stands exposed from the letter dated 19-7-1989 addressed by Chand Prakash Rana to M.T.N.L. which is subsequent to the aforesaid letter dated 10-7-1989. In fact, the aforesaid letter does not conclusively prove that the telephone was installed at the premises of Chand Prakash Rana. The hollowness of the aforesaid letter stands exposed from the letter dated 19-7-1989 addressed by Chand Prakash Rana to M.T.N.L. which is subsequent to the aforesaid letter dated 10-7-1989. In the letter dated 19-7-1989 Chand Prakash Rana has stated that he has cancelled his registration for telephone bearing No. 6269908 which was to be allotted to him and claimed the refund of Rs. 1,000/- being the deposit for registration. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that Mr. Chand Prakash Rana was provided with telephone No. 6269908. On the contrary the proposed allotment of telephone was cancelled by him and he had requested for the refund. There is no denial of this fact from the M.T.N.L. The aforesaid letter was sent to the M.T.N.L. by Shri Chand Prakash Rana under certificate of posting dated 19-7-1989 and a copy of the postal certificate is placed on record which bears the postal stamp dated 19-7-1989. Under these circumstances, the M.T.N.L. has miserably failed in establishing that telephone connection bearing No. 6269908 was installed at Shri Chand Prakash Ranas residence. We are distressed to find that M.T.N.L. has been making false statements as regards the installation of telephone connection at the premises of Chand Prakash Rana. No documentary evidence has been produced by the M.T.N.L. in this case to prove that installation of telephone at Mr. Ranas residence was done. In view of this, on the allegation of non-payment of telephone bills by Mr. Rana for the telephone which did not exist the disconnection of the telephone of Mr. Ranas wife was a very blatant case of highhandedness, unjust and illegal and amounted to gross deficiency in the service of the M.T.N.L. towards the complainant consumer. The wrongful action of disconnection of the telephone of Mrs. Homai Rana, we have no doubt in our mind on caused her great mental distress, inconvenience and loss. 4. It is unsuccessfully argued by Ms. Shah, that since the suit has been filed against Mr. Rana for the recovery of telephone bills amounting to Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the present complaint is not maintainable. The submission made by Ms. Shah is totally incorrect on the basis of the facts and circumstances appearing before us. Shah, that since the suit has been filed against Mr. Rana for the recovery of telephone bills amounting to Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the present complaint is not maintainable. The submission made by Ms. Shah is totally incorrect on the basis of the facts and circumstances appearing before us. The present complaint has been filed by complainant on 26-4-1993. Notice under section 13 of the C.P. Act was ordered to be issued by this commission and in response to the notice on 14-7-1993 one Mr. M.T. Halde, appeared on behalf of M.T.N.L. With a view to countering the allegations made by complainant in this complaint, the suit was filed on 13-7-1993 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay i.e. after the receipt of notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act directing M.T.N.L. to file its written version in reply to the allegations made by complainant. Thus, M.T.N.L. with a view to building the pressure on Mrs. Homai Rana filed the aforesaid suit a day earlier when the hearing of this complaint was fixed on 14-7-1993. Mr. M.T. Halde appearing on behalf of M.T.N.L. did not controvert these facts in the written version filed on behalf of M.T.N.L. The M.T.N.L. obviously with a view to creating a false defence, in answer to the allegations made by complainant in this complaint appears to have filed the suit against Mr. Rana. It is important to note that the disconnection of Mrs. Homai Ranas phone is dated 23-10-1992. But the M.T.N.L. was never keen to file a suit against Mr. Rana immediately and waited till 13-4-1993 to file a suit. The purpose to file suit is not for genuine reasons of recovery of arrears of telephone dues but to counter-blast the claim of Mrs. Homai Rana. From the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the action of M.T.N.L. in disconnecting Mrs. Homai Ranas telephone was not only illegal but also was an act of serious deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. It is very clear that in order to protect the unscrupulous officials of M.T.N.L. the arrears of huge amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs were foisted illegally on Mr. Chand Prakash Rana. We would like to appreciate the courage shown by the Rana couple in exposing the misdeeds and fraud committed by M.T.N.L. in the present case. 5. 2.5 lacs were foisted illegally on Mr. Chand Prakash Rana. We would like to appreciate the courage shown by the Rana couple in exposing the misdeeds and fraud committed by M.T.N.L. in the present case. 5. Coming to the claim of compennsation made by Mrs. Homai Rana that her telephone No. 6262282 be reconnected without charging any reconection charges and that she should not be charged the rental charges for the disconnection period, view the claim of the complainant on this ground is very genuine and reasonable and therefore we direct the M.T.N.L. Bombay to reconnect Mrs. Homai Ranas telephone No. 6262282 within a week from the receipt of this order. It is also necessary to direct the M.T.N.L. not to charge the reconnection charges and rental charges to Mrs. Rana for the entire period during which the telephone remained disconnected. The complainant has also claimed that the declaration be given that the complainant No. 2 does not have any telephone connection in the name of Mr. Rana. Since we have no jurisdiction to give such a declaration we cannot grant this relief. However, we have observed from the proved facts that the M.T.N.L. has failed to show that telephone connection No. 6269908 was ever installed at the residence of Mr. Rana. Similarly, the prayer of complainant to direct the opposite party not to demand Rs. 2.5 lacs also cannot be granted since the suit is already pending before the Bombay High Court for the same cause of action. However, we find that the aforesaid suit has been filed by M.T.N.L. after the receipt of notice from this commission and as a counter-blast to the complainants claims, in this consumer dispute. When the suit matter is pending before the Bombay High Court, we cannot give such directions. The complainants claim for refund of Rs. 1,000/- to Mr. Rana is valid and therefore we direct the opposite party to refund to Mr. Rana Rs. 1,000/- paid by him towards the registration charges. Lastly, the complainant, Mrs. Homai Rana has claimed the compensation of Rs. 10/- per day for the illegal disconnection of telephone No. 6262282 from 23-10-1992 which is also reasonable and requires to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : Order 6. Complaint is allowed. The opposite party viz. the M.T.N.L. Bombay is directed to re-connect telephone No. 6262282 at the residence of Ms. 10/- per day for the illegal disconnection of telephone No. 6262282 from 23-10-1992 which is also reasonable and requires to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : Order 6. Complaint is allowed. The opposite party viz. the M.T.N.L. Bombay is directed to re-connect telephone No. 6262282 at the residence of Ms. Homai Rana within a period of 7 days from the receipt of this order and she should not be charged anything for reconnection or the rental charges during the period of disconnection from 23-10-1992 till the date of reconnection. The complainant Mr. Chand Prakash Rana be refunded Rs. 1,000/- by M.T.N.L. within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Similarly, M.T.N.L. shall pay to complainant No. 1 viz. Mrs. Homai Rana Rs. 10/- per day towards compensation from 23-10-1992 till the date of reconnection of her telephone connection. Further it is ordered that if within 7 days the telephone of Mrs. Homai Rana is not restored, the M.T.N.L. will have to pay the compensation of Rs. 100/- per day to Mrs. Rana for every day of delay after the stipulated period of seven days. The complainants also be paid Rs. 2,000/- as costs of this complaint. The rest of the complainants claims are hereby rejected. Complaint allowed. *****