Smt. Chandana Mukherjee vs Sg The Secretary & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6846 Cal

SA 82 of 2021 Item-30.

           22-09-2022
                                           Smt. Chandana Mukherjee
                                                    Versus
  sg                                         The Secretary & Ors.
             Ct. 8

The appeal is of the year 2005. The appellant is not

represented. The records would show that the appellant has not

taken any steps for admission of this appeal. This matter initially

appeared on 9th September, 2022 but thereafter, the matter is

appearing in the list. In spite of due notice, the appellant is not

represented nor any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the

appellant.

The appellate judgment and decree dated 31 st January, 2005

passed by the Additional District Judge, Asansol affirming the

judgment and decree dated 11th September, 2002 in a suit for

declaration and permanent injunction is the subject matter of this

second appeal.

The appellant complained of disconnection of the telephone

line. The plaintiff alleged that in spite of payment of all bills, the

line was not restored. The defendant denied the said allegation

that the defendant indicated that the due to delayed payment of the

bills, the telephone line was disconnected but subsequently

restored. The evidence would show that for the period when the

telephone line was not functional, there was no culpable

negligence on the part of the defendant. There were mechanical

and technical issues for which the telephone line could be out of

order. However, it was established that such disconnection was

not intentional.

The appellate court considering the provision for

interruption beyond 14 days held that a subscriber could be

entitled to receive rebate but could not grant any such relief as no

prayer was specifically made in the plaint. The relevant Rule

being Rule 446 sub-rules 2 and 3 gives a right to a subscriber to

claim rebate in the event of fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions.

When the suit was heard, the telephone line was restored.

On such consideration, we feel that the trial court as well as

the first appellate court was justified in not granting any relief to

the plaintiff. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The second

appeal is dismissed.

(Uday Kumar, J.)                                (Soumen Sen, J.)