DISTRICT MANAGER, TELEPHONES, EAST CHAMPARAN vs ALOK VATSE

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte preferred by O.P.-appellant against the order dated 21.6.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 186/2002 by District Forum, Motihari whereby and whereunder directed the appellant (Telephone Department) to pay 12% interest on the deposited amount of the complainant for PCO and also allowed Rs. 200/- as litigation cost.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant applied for telephone booth/pay phone STD on 29.6.2000 and deposited Rs. 5,000/- as security money. THE Telephone Department issued demand note but connection was not provided in spite of several reminders. THEreafter, the complaint case was filed with a claim of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. The Telephone Department appeared. Its main contention was that complainant was not consumer. He has only applied for a PCO and he was not utilizing any service of the Telephone Department besides PCO works as an agent of the Telephone Department. The Telephone Department has already communicated him that department is ready to return the money with Bank interest as admissible. The PCO booth was not provided to the complainant as the cable pair was not available in that area during that period. The department was ready to provide him WLL telephone but he was not ready for the same.

After hearing both the parties the District Forum held that it was the duty of the Telephone Department to arrange for the cable pair and to provide telephone booth to the complainant at the earliest. As such, it was deficiency in the service and accordingly directed that the deposited amount of the complainant be returned back with 12% interest from the date of deposit and also allowed a cost of Rs. 200/-.

THE main contention of the appellant is that 12% interest is not admissible. THE department has already offered that as per admissible interest the deposited amount shall be returned to the complainant. THEre was no deficiency on the part of the appellant because availability of cable pair is subject to many conditions. THE appellant''s lawyer further submitted that since the complainant was not a consumer the case was not maintainable, as such, the award of cost of Rs. 200/- is also fit to be set aside. We have perused the impugned order and considered the submission of the appellant. The complainant has only applied for a telephone booth. As such, he was not a consumer of the Telephone Department. There is nothing on record to show that any other person out of turn was provided telephone booth ignoring the claim of the complainant. Non-availability of the cable pair was the reason for not providing telephone booth to the complainant. This is a technical reason and it does not come within the purview of the deficiency on the part of the department. Therefore, the award of cost of Rs. 200/- to the complainant is set aside. The department is ready to return back Rs. 5,000/- as deposited by the complainant with admissible interest. The District Forum has allowed interest @ 12% is on higher side.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed with the modification in the impugned order that Telephone Department shall return Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant with interest from the date of deposit as admissible under the Telephone Act and Rules till the date of payment. The award of cost of Rs. 200/- is also set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.