DISTRICT MANAGER TELECOM, CHANDIGARH vs O.P. GOEL

BY this judgment, two appeals bearing Nos. 161 and 162 of 1999 arising out of Complaint Nos. 1137 of 1998 and 256 of 1997 respectively are decided as these are between the same parties and with respect to the same telephone. Appeal No. 162 of 1999 pertains to delay in the installation of the telephone and Appeal No. 161 of 1999 pertains to delay in shifting. The District Forum-II allowed both the complaints and ordered payment of 1,4000/- for delay in releasing the connection and for shifting the telephone and the refund of the rental charged from the complainant for the period from 29.9.1997 to 15.12.1997 with costs of Rs. 1,100/- together with interest on the amount at the rate of 12% from the date of institution of complaint till payment. Aggrieved against this, the appellants have attempted these appeals.

WE first take Appeal No. 162 of 1999. The relevant facts in this regard are that the complainant Shri O.P. Goel, applied to the appellant on 2.2.1996 for obtaining a new telephone connection under NON OYT SS Category and deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 7.2.1996. The complainant-respondent retired as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on 31.5.1996 while working as Additional Registrar in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. He again submitted the requisite documents on 2.7.1996. It was only after the retirement that the respondent''s name figured in the waiting list of ''SS'' Category w.e.f. 7.2.1996 and was allotted Sr. No. PKL SS/570. Though it was given out that the waiting list stood upto 552 yet it was on 19.12.1996 that the advice note was issued by the appellant for installation of a telephone. However, on 11.1.1997 the complainant applied for change of address for the installation of the telephone at Chandigarh instead of Panchkula and deposited Rs. 1,000/- on 11.1.1997. After a number of letters by the respondent to the appellants, the telephone was finally installed on 1.5.1997 which according to the complainant, caused him mental harassment for 11 months for which he claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. In reply the appellant has not denied the important facts and stated that the initial application of the complainant was registered at No. PCK/GENL/13014 in the General Category and on submission of documents, after the retirement of the complainant, the waiting list PKL/SS/570 was allotted to the respondent-complainant in SS Category. The order of installation was issued through advice note on 19.12.1996 and the telephone No. 782029 was installed at House No. 899, Sector 7, Chandigarh on 1.5.1997.

It is useful to mention the details regarding the dates concerning the application and installation of telephone. The complainant applied for the new connection and deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 7.2.1996. In Column No. 3 of the application form (Annexure C/13) the complainant had specifically mentioned that he was of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge (on deputation as Additional Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh). The other details regarding the grade and salary etc. also find mention. The facts mentioned by the complainant have not been denied or controverted in the short reply filed on behalf of District Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh dated 18.9.1997. There is no affidavit of any officer/official of the appellant. It was a case where the applicant was entitled to be treated in the SS Category from the very beginning as clearly mentioned in the Application Form, in Column No. 3, Annexure C/13. Though, as per the stand of the appellant, all the formalities were completed on 2.7.1996 yet the Advice Note was issued on 19.12.1996, i.e. after more than 5 months. However, the subscriber-complainant wanted that the telephone may be installed at Panchkula instead of Chandigarh. This was done on 11.1.1997. Thus the respondent-complainant who applied for a telephone connection even three months before his retirement was actually provided the telephone on 1.5.1997. The details mentioned above clearly established deficiency on the part of the appellant. We consider that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would meet the ends of justice and we hereby reduce the amount and partly accept the appeal of the Telephone Department.

AS regards Appeal No. 161 of 1999, the grievance of the complainant-respondent was that there was a delay of over 2 months in shifting his telephone (No. 782029) from House No. 899, Sector 7, Chandigarh to House No. 838, Sector 11, Panchkula. The record shows that the department had not been fair to the respondents from the very beginning. It is alleged that the respondent on 29.9.1997 applied to the appellant for shifting of telephone No. 782029 from Chandigarh to Panchkula but no action was taken inspite of repeated reminders. The respondent submitted an application on the prescribed proforma on 21.10.1997 and in response to number of reminders, the respondent was asked by the appellant to submit the original documents and attested copies of the latest bill, sent to the respondent on 24.11.1997. The Advice Note was then issued and the telephone was shifted on 16.12.1997 bearing No. 570234. It took about two months to shift the telephone for which compensation is declined. Another grouse that has been raised by the appellant is that two bills dated 1.1.1997 and 1.11.1997 for the period from 29.9.1997 to 15.12.1997 for Rs. 373/- and 299/- respectively had not been sent to him and on receipt of a call from the office of TRA, Panchkula, on 10.6.1998 these bills were handed over to the respondent and paid by him on 22.6.1998. This is the period when the telephone was not shifted to his Panchkula address and the respondent has averred that these two sums be refunded alongwith surcharge. The appellant shall refund the rental charged from the complainant, as already ordered by the District Forum. The sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this decision till realisation if it is not paid within two months. Appellant shall also pay costs Rs. 1,000/-. Appeals disposed of.