ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs SRI SWAMY ANANTHA PRAKASH

F.A. I.A. No. 1435/1998 is preferred by the opposite party in O.P. No. 152/1995 for condoning the delay of 48 days in presenting the appeal F.A. S.R. No.3821/1998 questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum in that O.P. dated 22.9.1998 directing him to return the deposit sum of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 800/- collected towards installation charges for second time together with interest @ 15% per annum from 20.3.1995 and also Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The complainant in the said O.P. is the respondent in this F.A. I.A. and F.A. S.R. No. 3821/1998. The order of the District Forum was received by the petitioner on 16.10.1998 as admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay. Therefore the last date for presenting the appeal was 15.11.1998. The appeal papers were presented on 26.12.1998. Thus there was a delay in fact of 41 days in presenting the appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was received by the petitioner/appellant on 16.10.1998. The reason for the delay was stated as follows in the affidavit in support of this application : "After receiving the certified true copy of the order dated 22.9.1998 the appellant herein examined the case and obtained the legal opinion of his Counsel before the District Forum, who has opined that this is a fit case for appeal before this Hon''ble Commission. On examination of the matter, the appellant felt that this is a fit case for appeal and accordingly as per the official procedure the matter was referred to Head Quarters office for their opinion and also to advise the Standing Counsel in the State Commission to file an appeal. In this process, there is a delay of 48 days as the appeal ought to have been filed on 15.11.1998."

We find that no sufficient cause is made out for cordoning the delay because no effort and diligence has been shown in seeing that the appeal is presented within time i.e., 15.11.1998. F.A. I.A. No. 1435/1998 for condoning the delay is therefore dismissed and consequently the appeal F.A. S.R. No. 3821/1998 is rejected.

WE have examined the order of the District Forum in O.P. No. 152/1995 dated 22.9.1998 for satisfying ourselves about its legality and regularity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant does not seriously contend that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- in deposit with the Telephone Department had to be returned to the complainant. His only contention is that the complainant was required to send a stamped receipt and because the complainant did not send stamped receipt that amount was not paid back. But no material was placed before the District Forum to establish that the opposite party in the O.P. addressed any letter to the complainant requiring him to send stamped receipt. The only other amount is Rs. 800/- said to have been collected for installation charges. The facts clearly disclose that temporary connection was given to the complainant in 1992 itself on the complainant paying installation charges of Rs. 800/-. That temporary connection was for a period of two years. The complainant wanted to have that temporary connection extended and for that purpose the General Manager had to pass orders and accordingly he passed orders permitting the extension of the connection for a further period. It was then that installation charges were once again demanded and the complainant had to pay the same even though the earlier installed telephone remained in his premises and the extension of the temporary connection was made and the same telephone number continued. The District Forum after examining Rule 434 of the Indian Telegraphic Rules which was sought to be relied upon by the opposite party, held that as there was no installation in fact of the telephone for the second time the opposite party was not right in demanding installation charges of Rs. 800/- once again even though the earlier installed telephone was in the premises and there was no need for any fresh installation of the telephone. On that finding the District Forum directed the installation charges of Rs. 800/- collected the second time should be returned. The District Forum directed the refund of Rs. 3,300/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the complaint only i.e., 20.3.1995. WE find that is a very reasonable order on the facts of the present case because the opposite party has no case whatsoever for retaining the amount. In the result, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum warranting interference in exercise of our powers under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal disposed of.