RSA No.2068 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2068 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 03, 2009 Manmohan Singh ...........Appellant Versus Union of India and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sumof Rs. 28,090/- as principal and Rs.20,743/- as interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the due date of the bills till 30.6.2003 which comes to Rs.48,833/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the entire amount on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.48,833/- from the defendant and the plaintiffs are also entitled to pendente lite interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of passing of decree and plaintiffs were also entitled to future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of passing of decree till its realization, by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed except for modification in the rate of interest by the District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Manmohan Singh. RSA No.2068 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The facts of the case, as noticed by the District Judge in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. Appellant, herein, was consumer of telephone number ASR-237600, who was under obligation to make payment of user,thereof, but he became defaulter in making payment of the bills in respect of consumption of telephone connection, ibid, and total amount to the tune of Rs.28,090/- was outstanding against the appellant and due to non-payment thereof, the disputed electric connection was dis-connected and notice was issued to appellant to make payment, but he failed to make payment of the disputed amount. 3. Earlier, Ministry of Communication, respondent No.1 was Incharge and later, respondent No.2 came into being w.e.f.1.10.2000 and all the assets and liabilities of respondent No.1 stood transferred to respondent No.2 . 4. Against this background, respondents herein, instituted suit before learned trial Court for recovery of Rs.28,090/- as principal, Rs.20,743/- as interest @ 12% per annum from the date of bill till 30.6.2003, total Rs.48,833/- and prayer for grant of future interest on the aforementioned amount was made. 5. General Manger, Telecom, Amritsar, was overall Incharge and principal officer of Union of India, who was competent to file suit on behalf of Union of India and the Divisional Engineer Phones (Legal) was also authorized to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the respondents and depose as witness. General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar, had given power of attorney in favour of RSA No.2068 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Avtar Singh Aad, Divisional Engineer Phones (Legal) Amritsar, and the instant suit has been filed through the latter. 6. Appellant, in his written statement, apart from taking preliminary objections of maintainability of suit, limitation, suit has not been filed through competent person, respondents are not entitled to any interest and there was no privity of contract between him and respondent No.2, denied that Department of Telecommunication was one of the departments of Union of India under the Ministry of Telecommunication or the Divisional Manager Phones (Legal) was authorised to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the respondents or that General Manger, Telecom, Amritsar, had given general power of attorney in favour of Avtar Singh Azad, Divisional Manager phones (Legal) Amritsar. It was admitted that he (appellant) approached the erstwhile department of Telecommunication with a request to provide telephone connection and on his request, telephone connection bearing number 237600 was provided in his shop, which he closed in December, 1996 and since then, he never used the said phone and he shifted along with his family to Chandigarh and pronto after closing his business in December,1996, he informed the department of Telecommunication that his telephone number 237600 be disconnected and he never utilised the telephone facility after December 1996. It has been further averred that he has been paying bills regularly till December,1996 and even thereafter he had been visiting the office of respondent RSA No.2068 of 2009 (O&M) 4 No.2 and requesting them that his security to the tune of Rs.3000/- lying with respondent No.1 may be adjusted towards the outstanding bill. It has been further averred that no notice dated 16.6.69 demanding Rs.48,833/- from him was ever received by him, as he left Amritsar in February, 1997. So, in sum, he averred that he is not liable to pay impugned amount,as also, interest, thereon. Rest averments contained in the plaint were controverted and prayer for dismissal of the suit was, thus, made. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not filed by a competent person?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to interest?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery on account of outstanding amount of bills against the defendant. In order to prove their case, parties led their evidence. Telephone connection was released to the defendant with STD facility on application submitted by him. However, the defendant-appellant failed to pay the outstanding bills. The case of the defendant was that the amount in dispute was not recoverable from him and, in fact, exaggerated bill has been issued. No such calls, as mentioned in RSA No.2068 of 2009 (O&M) 5 bill, had ever been made by the defendant. Admittedly, the appellant was a consumer of the plaintiffs and telephone connection was installed by the plaintiffs in the premises of the appellant. Learned District Judge in the judgment has observed that documents dated 1.3.1997 Exhibits PW1/1, dated 1.5.1997 PW1/J, dated 1.7.1997,PW1/K, dated 1.9.1997, PW1/L and dated 1.11.1997 PW1/M indicates the outstanding arrears liable to be paid by the appellant qua telephone connection in this view. Appellant had failed to rebut the said outstanding amount. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below calls for interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge September 03, 2009 arya