CHENNAI TELEPHON vs L.SUBRAMANI

THE appeals arise out of C.O.P. No. 25/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur. THE original complainant filed A.P. No. 328/2005. He passed away pending appeal and his L.Rs. came on record and in the other appeal A.P. No. 469/2003 filed by the opposite parties, the L.Rs. have been brought on record. THE complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances: (a) THE complainant had applied for a new telephone connection on 13.1.1998 at No. 4/128, Karanodai, Sholavaram, Chennai-67. New telephone connection was sanctioned and the complainant was informed vide order dated 1.11.1999. THE telephone however was not installed. He was asked to wait for another 3 months since there was construction for new telephone exchange at Sholavaram. In the meantime, he shifted his residence to a new address. He sent a letter dated 9.1.2001 to provide telephone connection at the new address namely No. 109, By-pass Road, Redhills, Chennai-52. Connection was not given. On 26.2.2001, he sent a further communication requesting the opposite parties to provide telephone connection or return the deposit. THE authorities informed him that the file concerned was misplaced. Subsequently, during his visit, he was told that the file was traced and the said connection was energized at Puzhal. He was informed by the 3rd opposite party that some mistake had occurred and he was requested not to precipitate matters. Having waited for a long time, a letter was addressed to the Chief General Manager for redressal. This was followed by a legal notice. This was responded to stating that the matter was under investigation. Since no action had been taken, the complaint came to be filed.

THE case of the opposite parties was as follows: THE complainant''s application for telephone connection was kept in waiting list. On reaching seniority necessary orders through advice note for new telephone connection was issued and the same was communicated vide letter dated 1.11.1999. After receipt of the order from the headquarters, the exchange authority inspected the complainant''s area for effecting connection. It was found that there was no spare underground cable pair and because of that work could not be taken up immediately. THE complainant was duly informed. While so, he had sent a letter dated 21.9.2000 intimating his new address and requesting for connection at the new address. Necessary orders were issued by the competent authority to provide telephone connection at the new place. Connection was given at Puzhal on 23.10.2000 with telephone bearing No. 6321668. THE number was changed to 6591669 due to opening of a new exchange. Contradicting the above facts the complainant sent a letter dated 26.2.2001 that new telephone connection was not installed at the new changed address and, therefore, the deposit was to be refunded. After receipt of the said letter, the matter was referred to Vigilance cell for necessary investigation. In the meantime, there were dues for Rs. 17,541 and Rs. 3,194 in the said telephone causing disconnection of telephone line. THE Vigilance cell inspected the area and confirmed the installation of telephone at Puzhal and it was understood that in connivance with the complainant a third party had utilized the telephone. THE National Highways Authority due to road widening demolished the said building where the said telephone connection was installed. THE complainant had not approached the Consumer Forum with clean hands and, therefore, the question of non-installation of telephone and refund of deposit did not arise. THE complaint was liable to be dismissed. Before the District Forum Exs. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the opposite party though 3 documents were produced they chose not to participate further in the proceedings and they were set ex parte. Those documents have been shown in the index as D. Nos. 1 to 3.

The District Forum came to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the deposit amount received from the complainant, a sum of Rs. 6,000 towards compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering and cost of Rs. 1,000, in all Rs. 10,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 7,000 from the date of complaint and from the date of deposit namely, 13.1.1998 for Rs. 3,000. The order of the District Forum further stated that the said sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest was recoverable from the monthly salary of opposite parties 1 to 3 payable in the month of March 2003.

THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted as follows : THE application for new telephone connection was registered on the same day of the application. THE registration date and number were mentioned in the demand note dated 13.1.1998 (Ex. A1). After the name of the complainant reached seniority, the sanction order (advice note) dated 30.9.1999 for a new telephone to the complainant was issued and the same was intimated on 1.11.1999 (Ex. A3). THE date of registration was also given in the advice note. In such circumstances, the finding of the District Forum that the registration itself had taken place only on 30.9.1999 i.e., after lapse of 20 months from the date of application was incorrect. THEre was no spare underground cable pair readily available and, therefore, the connection could not be given immediately. This explanation ought to have been accepted by the District Forum. In the meantime, based on the intimation from the complainant dated 21.9.2000 that he had shifted his residence, an amendment order for installing the telephone at the new address was issued and consequently the work was taken up and completed on 23.10.2000 and a new telephone connection was provided to the complainant. This was done on 23.10.2000 before the letter dated 9.1.2001 (Ex. B4) was received by the opposite parties. THE finding by the District Forum that the 3 documents filed by the opposite party themselves would show that the said installation of the telephone was carried out only after receipt of letter dated 9.1.2001 (Ex. A4) was incorrect. Further, the opposite party did not receive the letter dated 9.1.20001. THE entire discussion by the District Forum was erroneous. THE matter was pending with the Vigilance and no decision could, therefore, be taken and conveyed immediately in writing to the complainant. THEre was no proper opportunity given to the opposite parties to participate in the summary proceedings. THE award of interest was also not proper. THEre was no deficiency in service. THE complaint ought to have been dismissed. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant''s legal representatives, the District Forum had considered all the materials though the opposite parties had remained ex parte and reached a conclusion. The order did not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Commission. Nothing prevented the opposite parties from attending the Court and adducing evidence. However, there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because of which, substantial damage had been caused but the District Forum had awarded only a token compensation and the legal represenatives were entitled to enhancement of compensation. On the side of the legal representatives, the following decisions were relied on : (i) General Manager, B.S.N.L. & Anr. v. Premraj Jain, IV (2004) CPJ 676. (ii) Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma & Ors., I (1996) CLT 165 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 869.

IT is seen from the order of the District Forum as follows : The complainant had made the application on 13.1.1998. Absolutely, no explanation was given by the opposite parties. for registering the application only on 30.9.1999 and this was also intimated only on 1.11.1999. Absolutely, no explanation was forthcoming on the side of the opposite parties. No documents were filed explaining such a long delay. The delay in registration had not been explained. This amounted to deficiency in service. After the receipt of Ex. A3 letter, the complainant the sent one letter dated 21.9.2000 asking the department to instal the telephone at a new address namely 115, GNI Road, Puzhal, Chennai-66 under the control of Redhills Telephone Exchange. That such a letter had been received by the opposite parties would be evident from the fact that they had themselves put this letter into Court and it had been shown as D. No. 1. Ex. A3 is dated 1.11.1999. The complainant had waited till 21.9.2000. Nothing happened in the meantime. Though it was explained in para 2 of the written version that due to non-feasibility found by the exchange, connection could not be given to the complainant as per the report of the concerned officer of Redhills Telephone Exchange, no such report was filed on behalf of the opposite parties. This has been characterized by the District Forum as a cock and bull story. Since, till 26.2.2001, no connection had been given, the frustrated complainant requested the department to refund the advance amount of Rs. 3,000. If really, as claimed by the department, telephone had been installed in the old address even before the receipt of document No. 3 filed by them, they could have easily proved the same. This was not done. This would conclusively show that no telephone was installed either in the old or in the new address. No material was placed to show that the telephone was already installed. There was also another case put forward that the file had been misplaced and could not be traced out. When the department had received cancellation letter under Ex. A5 it was indeed strange that there was no reaction shown by sending a reply stating that the telephone had already been installed at the old address and, therefore, there could not be any cancellation. The department did not bother to prove any of its allegations. No bills relating to installation at the old address were sent. The letters from the complainant went unresponded. The District Forum was satisfied that there was deficiency in service. The complainant also had deposed as C.W. 1. We do not find any material to take a different view as regards the appeal filed by the opposite parties in A.P. No. 469/2003. As regards the appeal filed by the complainant now pursued by the legal representatives, we do not find any material to enhance the compensation. In the result, both the appeals, namely A.P. No. 469/2003 and A.P. No. 328/2005 are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost in both the appeals. Appeals dismissed.