CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MADRAS TELEPHONES vs Rizwan International

THE opposite party Chief General Manager, Madras Telephones against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE complainant Company is a subscriber to telephone No. 6261062 installed in its premises at Harrington Road, Madras. It applied for shifting of its telephone on 9.12.1993 (sic 9.11.1993 in the complaint) to its new premises which they expected to be ready for occupation by April, 1994. According to the complainant they had given application for shifting well in advance of 6 months. THE complainant shifted to the new premises on 31.3.1994 and this fact was intimated to the opposite party by its letter dated 4.4.1994. THE shifting was done only during June, 1994. Because of the delay in shifting the complainant suffered in its business. Praying for compensation the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended that in the shifting application the complainant had stated that till the shifting the phone should continue to work in the old premises if the shifting was not immediately feasible. While processing the shifting application it was found that certain bills were outstanding to be settled and the same was intimated to the representative of the complainant. Those bills were settled on 15.4.1994 and 28.4.1994. THEn the shifting of the phone in question involved shifting from one Zone to another Zone. Necessary inter-zone shifting order was issued on 23.5.1994 and the shifting of the phone was completed on 9.6.1994. THE phone was functioning in the old premises till the time it was shifted and therefore there could be no loss to the complainant due to the alleged delay in shifting. THEre was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence complaint was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence, held that there was delay in shifting of the phone and that amounted to deficiency in service and therefore it awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. It also ordered payment of Rs. 500/- as costs of the complaint.

Now in the appeal after hearing both sides and on going through the relevant records, we find that there was no unreasonable delay in shifting. According to the complainant themselves, they wanted to give the opposite party six months time for shifting from the date of application i.e., 9.12.93. Now the shifting has been done on 9.6.1993. So the complainant cannot complain of any delay. Then, according to the complainant they informed the opposite party about the shifting to the new premises on 4.4.1994 under Ex. A-1 letter. According to the opposite party the complainant had not paid certain bills and then the process had taken time since it involved inter-zone transfer. It is quite understandable that the opposite party would take steps only after they were intimated on 4.4.1994 about the complainant shifting from the old premises to the new premises. According to the opposite party it was then found that the complainant had not paid certain bills, and further the process had taken time since it involved inter-zone transfer. This is not disputed. Here to repeat, as seen above, according to the complainant themselves in their application dated 9.12.1993 they wanted to give six months'' time for shifting of the phone. This being the position, there is no point in saying that after receipt of the application the opposite party should have intimated the complainant about the pending bills. Then the District Forum has observed that the order for shifting has been passed on 18.5.1994 as seen from Exs. B-3 and B- 4 and on 23.5.1994 as seen from Ex. B-5. Then it states that there is no reason as to why the shifting was not completed immediately after Ex. B-5 and no acceptable reason has been given for this delay which amounted to defidency in service. From this it is clear that according to the District Forum there was deficiency in service because of the delay from 23.5.1994 to 9.6.1994. But we think that this short delay cannot be said to be an unreasonable one. Even the District Forum itself says that the delay is small. In these circumstances, we do not think that itcan be held that it is correct for the District Forum to hold that there was deficiency in service and passing an award for Rs. 2,000/-.

IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.