GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD TELECOM vs A.G.CHANDRASEKHAR

WE do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the opposite parties in CD. No. 655 of 1994 questioning the order of the Hyderabad District Forum-II therein dated 2.8.1999. The complainant in the CD. is respondent in the appeal.

AT this outset we have to note that the complaint was presented on 31.3.1994 by the complainant aggrieved that his application for shifting his telephone bearing No. 553514 from Malakpet to Amberpet made on 30.6.1993 was not attended to by the appellants. After repeated approaches, in August, 1993 he was confronted by the requirement of producing the receipts showing that he paid all the bills due to the Telephone Department in respect of his telephone. It is not as if the appellants did not have ample time from 30th June, 1993 to August, 1993 to verify whether the complainant was in arrears. On the other hand it was stated in the counter affidavit dated 17.9.1998 of Sri K. Sudhakar filed before the District Forum as follows, while admitting that the complainant applied for a shift on 30.6.1993: "The application was not processed as there are some dues to be paid by the complainant. When the complainant approached the department in August, 1993 he was informed that there were dues of Rs. 1,128/-and if the payment particulars were produced the application for shift would be processed."

It is significant that it was stated in the counter affidavit that orally the complainant was informed when he approached "the Department in August, 1993" that there were dues of Rs. 1,128/-. It is not stated by Sri K. Sudhakar how he, working in September, 1998 in the Office of Principal General Manager at Hyderabad, came to know about that oral instruction made in August, 1993. He did not state who gave that oral instruction. No material whatsoever was filed to establish that the complainant approached "the Department" in August, 1993 and that he was so informed. It is obvious that the said plea that the complainant approached the department in August, 1993 and that he was informed of arrears orally, was an after-thought and a concoction. Secondly, the assertion by the appellants that there were dues of Rs. 1,128/- when the complainant applied for shift can only be on the basis that they verified. No material was there to establish that any such verification was made. If really the complainant was in arrears, they could have asked him to produce no due certificate immediately on receiving the application on 30.6.1993. The learned Counsel for the appellants before us accepts that the complainant was not in arrears. It was not the case of the appellants that any disconnection notice was issued to the complainant. No material whatsoever was placed before the District Forum to establish that the complainant was in arrears at the relevant time. Under the circumstances their requiring the complainant orally in August, 1993 to produce receipts evidencing payment of the bills was only a pretext to explain away the delay in shifting of the telephone. So also the allegation that the complainant produced the receipt in December, 1993. The appellants put forward the plea that ''cable pairs'' were not available thereafter and so many other reasons; and even after the complainant approached the District Forum in March, 1994 the shifting of the telephone was not effected till 6.5.1994. Thus the appellants took ten months for shifting the telephone after the complainant made his application on 30.6.1993. The inaction from June, 1993 to August, 1993 has not been explained by the appellants.

In this C.D. of March, 1994 the appellants filed their counter only in September, 1993 which was the reason for the delay in the disposal of the CD. After considering all aspects of the matter the District Forum directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 6,000/- towards the loss caused to the complainant due to non-shifting of the telephone from his old premises to his new premises and also to pay costs of Rs. 500/-.

IN District Manager, Telecom Office, Patna v. Bihar State Ware-housing Corporation, I (1991) CPJ 42 (NC), the National Commission held that "the award of compensation by Forums established under the Act has to be made only on well-recognised legal principles governing the quantification of damages or compensation" and that "the compensation to be awarded has to be quantified on a rational basis on consideration of material produced before the adjudicating Forums snowing the extent of injury suffered and the manner in which and the extent to which monetary loss has been caused thereby to the complainant" - IN that case the complaint related to wrongful shifting of a telephone and compensation was claimed for that. The State Commission of Bihar awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The National Commission held that as there was absolutely no material before the State Commission showing the extent of loss or injury, the State Commission was not justified without any discussion in awarding Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, and reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,000/-. Two facts taken into consideration by the National Commission were that the shifting of the telephone was only for a short period and that the complainant had two or three other telephones in the same office from which the telephone in question was wrongly shifted to another place. IN General Manager, Telecom v. Pradeep Chawla, II (1999) CPJ 411 (Chandigarh State Commission), the Chandigarh State Commission upheld the award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for inordinate delay of more than two years in shifting the telephone in view of the fact that the complainant was a disabled person observing that the Department was expected to be fair and atleast reasonably efficient. In the present case it is not in dispute that the complainant, at the relevant time, was a businessman having STD facility. He stated that he was having business from throughout the country and that the telephone was absolutely essential for his business, and that his business suffered because of the delay in shifting the telephone when he shifted his residence from Malakpet to Amberpet, due to which he was without a telephone at the new place. It is not the case of the appellants that the complainant had any other telephone at his premises. Under the circumstances a reasonable compensation has to be awarded to the complainant for the delay in shifting the telephone. In the present case the complainant applied for shifting of telephone on 30.6.1993 and the telephone was actually shifted only on 6.5.1994, i.e. after ten months. Even allowing two months as the time that may be required for effecting the shift, the delay was more than eight months. The appellants sought to defend themselves by saying that there were dues of Rs. 1,128/- to be cleared by the complainant. But as a fact there were no dues payable. Under the circumstances we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the District Forum was justified.

THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. THE amount awarded by the District Forum and the costs awarded by this Commission shall be paid within six weeks from today. Appeal dismissed with costs.