Durga Prasad vs TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 892/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant was having a telephone No. 27864. This telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the bill. THE complainant sent a draft on 17.8.1992 which was received by the Department on 19.8.1992, but inspite of that the telephone has not been energised. THE complainant has prayed that his telephone may be energised, rental may not be charged and he be paid Rs. 3,500/- as compensation. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant has not paid the bill till the date of payment and hence the telephone could not be energised.

The learned District Forum after considering the facts of the Case came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directed the Telephone Department to cancel the rental bill for three months and ordered for issuance of a letter to this effect.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. Notices have been issued to the parties for the date fixed but none of the parties appeared. Hence the appeal is being decided without hearing the parties.

A perusal of the file will go to show that the complainant has already made payment of the bill on 17.8.1992 by draft which was received by the department on 19.8.1992. After the amount has been received it was the duty of the Telephone Department to have kept the telephone alive. As the telephone line has been disconnected the complainant asked for compensation. As the damages have not been paid, the complainant has filed the complaint and prayed that he be given Rs. 3,500/- as damages. He has also prayed that the cost of the appeal should also be paid to him. In the present case the complainant has not shown as to how he suffered damages for non-energising of the telephone. It was the duty of the complainant to have indicated in the complaint the extent of damages suffered by him, and the cause for the same. The complainant has not mentioned the details of the damages in the complaint. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages on this account. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.