GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION vs Krishan Kumar Sharma

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 10.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-II), in Complaint Case No. 304 of 2000, Krishan Kumar Sharma v. General Manager, Department of Telecommunication.

IN brief the complaint is that the complainant while residing in village Sohana had a residential Telephone No. 38894. IN May, 1999 due to shifting of his residence to a neighbouring village Mauli Baidwan, on 4.5.1999 he applied to the O.P. for shifting the telephone to his new residence. The concerned official of Sub-Exchange, Sohana forwarded his application vide Dispatch No. 3153736, dated 18.6.1999 for further processing to Commercial Officer, Mohali Exchange. INspite of all efforts made by the complainant, the telephone was not shifted till 18.5.2000 i.e. the date of filing the complaint, on the plea that in the area it is Technically Not Feasible (T.N.F.) to provide the phone. However, the complainant avers that many other consumers had been given telephones in village Mauli Baidwan. Moreover, even after disconnection of the telephone at Sohana, bills for the same telephone were being sent to the complainant who has been paying the same. For this deficiency in service, the complainant has sought following reliefs : (a) His telephone be shifted to his residence at Mauli Baidwan immediately. (b) Rs. 50,000/- along with 18% per annum interest be paid to him by the O.P. for causing him mental agony. (c) Any other relief deemed fit by the Forum.

Version of the O.P. is that the telephone could not be shifted due to Technically Not Feasibility in that area and the complainant was informed of this and was assured that when there is feasibility, the telephone will be shifted. As regards the telephone bills the O.P. claimed that they have been right in sending the bills as the complainant did not stated that telephone may be closed "Under the shift" or "disconnected under safe custody". It has been also stated by the O.P. that no telephone was provided in Mauli Baidwan to anybody junior in waiting to the complainant. While arguing the case, the learned Counsel for the complainant produced a copy of a letter dated 12.10.2000 from Accounts Officer, T.R.A., Phase-II, Mohali addressed to Sh. Vinod Kumar, S.D.E. (Legal Cell), Sector 17, Chandigarh stating that telephone of the complainant was disconnected on 20.12.1999 due to non-payment of bill dated 1.7.1998 for Rs. 1,625/-. The learned District Forum observed that it is highly improbable that for 3 years an area on the outskirts of Chandigarh could remain Technically Not Feasible for provision of telephone. To this learned Counsel for the O.P. agreed that the area was now feasible for provisions of telephone but since the complainant has not paid the aforesaid bill dated 1.7.1998 the phone has not been installed at the new residence of the complainant. However, this plea was not taken in the written statement filed by the O.P. on 30.3.2001 i.e. a date much after the date of the bill as well as the letter written by the Accounts Officer, T.R.A., Mohali to S.D.E. (Legal Cell), Sector 17, Chandigarh. Learned District Forum-II thus rejected the allegations of disconnection on account of non-payment of bill as a clever after-thought and held the deficiency in service as proved. The learned District Forum, therefore, directed the O.P. to shift the telephone of the complainant and install the same at his residence in village Mauli Baidwan without charging from him the arrears of the alleged bill dated 1.7.1998 for Rs. 1,625/-. It also directed the O.P. to refund to the complainant or adjust in his future bills all the amounts which they have recovered from him after the disconnection of his telephone at village Sohana till installation of his telephone at his residence at village Mauli Baidwan. It further directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by this order the O.P. has filed this complaint. The complaint having been taken on board, record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notice was sent to the respondent. Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/O.P. whereas Mr. Swaran Singh, Advocate represented the respondent/complainant.

Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate took the Bench through the chronology of events and then submitted that initially the area of the new residence of the complainant at village Mauli Baidwan was Technically Not Feasible but later when a pair became available for installation of his telephone, it came to light that he had not paid the pending bill of Rs. 1,625/- and thus due to his non-payment, the telephone was not installed. He further submitted that after the directions of the learned District Forum in the impugned order were received, the telephone has been installed at the residence of the respondent/complainant and it is functional w.e.f. 21.5.2003. He emphatically submitted that since the area was T.N.F., hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. He further submitted that restraint on payment of bill of Rs. 1,625/- imposed by the learned District Forum is unlawful and similarly award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is also unlawful as the O.P.-Department had made all efforts to make the area technically feasible. He, therefore, prayed for restraint on payment of telephone bill to be removed and setting aside payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the order is just and fair and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

HAVING listened to the learned Counsels for both sides and perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, we find that there is no restraint on the appellant/O.P.-Department to seek payment of the bill of Rs. 1,625/- and at the same time the complainant if dissatisfied with the bill, is at liberty to challenge this bill before the Appropriate Authority as per law. The learned District Forum has only directed that the installation of telephone shall not be contingent to payment of this bill and we find this direction just and legal under the facts and circumstances of this case. As regards award of compensation, the complainant has not brought any evidence on record to indicate any loss or damage suffered. Neither is this the case of the respondent/complainant that he is in a business profession where he needs this residential phone to promote his professional or business activities. Even though we are also conscious of the fact that there is really no mathematical yardstick to calculate compensation to be paid, yet in the present case we find that the compensation awarded is slightly on the higher side and in our considered opinion the impugned order needs to be modified to that extent.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the O.P. is now directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 5,000/- as ordered in the impugned order. Subject to this modification the impugned order is upheld. The appeal and the complaint are disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Both parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal disposed of.