Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2007 DIGILAW 832 (SC)

Ashok Kumar Bhuwania v. Union of India

2007-05-14

B.P.SINGH, H.S.BEDI

body2007
ORDER : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Appellant lodged a complaint on 27.6.1998 complaining about disconnection of his telephone. The complaint before the District Forum mentioned that a complaint was also made to the authority on 5.6.1998 that the telephone had been disconnected arbitrarily. The matter was ultimately disposed of by the District Forum by its order dated 16.8.2001. The District Forum found that there was no justification for disconnection of the telephone line and it was directed that the Respondent BSNL shall return the amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest and further that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per year shall be paid to the complainant for wrongful disconnection of his telephone line. It appears that after about 3 years an application was made before the District Forum by the BSNL, which was dismissed on 26.5.2004 holding that it had no power to recall its earlier order passed on 16.8.2001. 4. The Respondent-BSNL moved the State Consumer Commission in appeal against the original order of the District Forum dated 16.8.2001 but the said appeal was dismissed by the State Consumer Commission on 8.2.2005. However, while upholding the Award made by the District Forum, the State Consumer Commission observed that the order under challenge was vague and permitted the Respondent BSNL to seek clarification from the District Forum as to from which year the said amount is to be paid. The Respondent moved an application for clarification of order dated 16.8.2001 before the District Forum wherein by order dated 7.7.2005 the District Forum deleted the words "per year" from the order dated 16.8.2001 and directed the Respondent to pay a sum a Rs. 15,000/- in total. 5. The Appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum and hence moved the State Consumer Commission against deletion of the words "per year" from the order dated 16.8.2001. The State Consumer Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant by one line order and this led to the filing of a writ petition before the High Court impugning the order of the State Consumer Commission. The High Court has summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no question of law involved in the matter. 6. The High Court has summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no question of law involved in the matter. 6. It was submitted before us on behalf of the Appellant that the order deleting the words "per year" virtually amounts to review of the earlier order dated 16.8.2001 which amounts to exercise of power without jurisdiction. 7. The facts stated above would show that the Respondent BSNL was to reconnect the telephone line forthwith, even if it disputed its liability to pay any amount to the Appellant. It now transpires, and it is not disputed, that one telephone line was reconnected on 22.8.2006 and the other on 15.9.2006. 8. Having regard to the manner in which the Respondent has acted in this matter by refusing to reconnect the telephone lines despite clear orders of the District Forum and the State Consumer Commission, the matter has to be seriously viewed. 9. We agree with the Appellant that the District Forum by its order dated 16.8.2001 having awarded compensation to the Appellant @ Rs. 15,000/- per year could not have reviewed its order by deleting the words "per year" from its order. At best the District Forum could have clarified its order by specifying the date from which the compensation was to be calculated rather than deleting the words "per year" which virtually amounted to review its order, which it had no jurisdiction to do. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order of the District Forum must be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. We further clarify that the period from which the compensation is payable to the Appellant shall be w.e.f. 5.6.1998 and the compensation shall be calculated on the basis of this date till the date of reconnection of the first telephone line, i.e., 22.8.2006 This calculation must be done by the Respondent BSNL within a period of one month from today and the amount shall be paid to the Appellant within 15 days thereafter failing which the officer of the BSNL, whoever they may be, shall expose themselves to action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, exemplary costs must be awarded against the respondent-BSNL for acting in the manner they have done. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, exemplary costs must be awarded against the respondent-BSNL for acting in the manner they have done. Therefore, we impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) against the BSNL which shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today. It will be open to the BSNL to hold an enquiry and recover this amount from the officer found responsible for such inaction and non-compliance with the order of directing reconnection. The appeal is allowed.