GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM vs JOY M.C.

THESE appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Appeal 840/2000 is by opposite parties 1 and 2 in O.P. 703/1999 whereas Appeal 841/2000 is by opposite parties 1 and 2 in O.P. 704/1999 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur. The allegation by the complainant in O.P. 703/1999 was that himself applied for a telephone connection to other applicants of the locality he is not given connection. The reason assigned by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that the 3rd opposite party raised objection in drawing the line through his property. Since the opposite parties have given connection overlooking the priority, complainant maintained, that the same would amount to deficiency of service. In the version by the second opposite party it was contended that every endeavour was made to give connection, but in view of the objection by the 3rd opposite party they could not draw the line and ultimately they filed petition under Section 14 of the Indian Telegraph Act before the District Magistrate, in such circumstance there could be no deficiency of service. Third opposite party maintained that himself is not a necessary party but he objected to the drawing of line through the property.

COMPLAINANT in O.P. 704/1999 also alleged that he applied for telephone connection on 29.4.1999 and remitted the necessary amount; though he was not given connection, other persons in the locality were given connection overlooking the priority, according to him that would amount to deficiency in service. It was learnt that the 3rd opposite party raised objection in drawing the line. Second opposite party maintained in his version though they wanted to draw the line without any delay, 3rd opposite party objected, hence they had to approach the District Magistrate as per Section 14 of the Indian Telegraph Act, they maintained that there is no deficiency in service. The 3rd opposite party contended that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are not entitled to draw the line through his property. In both the cases after adverting to the evidence tendered, District Forum found deficiency in service and made direction to the opposite parties to give connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the respective complainant along with costs Rs. 150/-. It is the said direction that is under challenge in these appeals. Since common question arises for determination and the same set of evidence has to be appreciated it would be convenient to dispose of this matter by common order. It is submitted that after the order of the District Forum, telephone connection has already been given. What now remains is to see whether there was deficiency in service enabling the respective complainants to claim compensation. As has noted, the justification offered by the appellant for not giving connection is the objection raised by the 3rd opposite party in drawing the line through his property. Complainant in O.P. 703/1999 produced Exbt. P4 judgment which gave right to the complainant to use the B-Schedule pathway in that case and the 3rd opposite party herein was restrained from interfering with the said B-Schedule pathway. The said judgment could show that the complainant has got easement right to use the B-Schedule pathway without interference by the 3rd opposite party. What is significant to be noted is, admitted the respective complaints were filed on 5.8.1999, Exbt. R1 in O.P. 703/1999 is the copy of the petition which opposite parties 1 and 2 filed before the District Magistrate was on 19.8.1999. In the order O.P. 703/1999 the District Forum states that the said petition before the District Magistrate was filed on 19.8.1998 whereas the complaint was filed on 5.8.1999, the order states that Exbt. R1 was filed before the Additional District Magistrate only after receipt of the notice on the complaint from the District Forum; that is the same position according to the respondent with respect to O.P. 704/1999. The argument by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, as a matter of fact they were not aware of the institution of this complaint and at the time when they instituted Exbt. R1 proceedings they were not aware of the filing of the complaint in question. But as has noted, the District Forum states in the impugned order that the opposite parties filed a petition before the Additional District Magistrate only after receipt of the notice from the District Forum. Unless the contrary is shown, it has to be taken that the District Forum made the said observation after perusal of the records before it. If as a matter of fact the notice was received from the District Forum only after 19.8.1999 the appellant could have established it by producing the notice which ordinarily should have an endorsement by the appellant as to the date of receipt of notice, but the appellant did not produce the same. When such is the position it is not open to the appellant now to contend that as a matter of fact the notice was received from the District Forum only after Exbt. R1 proceedings was instituted. Then inasmuch as the appellants did not take steps for filing Exbt. R1 soon after the obstruction by the 3rd opposite party and they initiated the proceedings only after receiving the notice from the District Forum would support a conclusion that they filed the said petition Exbt. R1 only after knowing as to the complaint filed before the District Forum by the respective complainants. This delay in approaching the Additional District Magistrate would constitute deficiency in service. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances as indicated above, the complainant would be entitled to a direction for payment of compensation. The quantification of compensation in the given circumstance cannot be said to be in any way on the higher side. We see nothing to interfere, appeals fail, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.