GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM vs UDAI NARAIN SINHA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 431/1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a blind person and he is a subscriber of Telephone No. 266494. THE complainant has been asked to pay Rs. 74,000/- from the year 1989 till the date of complaint without giving any rebate. THE complainant was to be given benefit in terms of the Government order of 1993. THE complainant put up his case before the Telephone Department but his complaint was not accepted. THE complainant was asked to pay the entire bills issued by the Telephone Department failing which his telephone will be disconnected. THE complainant should get all the benefits which the blind persons are entitled to get in terms of the orders of the Cenral Government. THE complainant has also prayed for the benefits which are to be given to him and to get the telephone energized. The opposite party did not appear before the learned District Forum inspite of service.

The learned District Forum, after considering the evidence of the complainant, came to the conclusion that the opposite party. Telephone Department has committed deficiency in service, hence it directed that the complainant should be given benefit of the Government orders issued by the Central Government within a period of 15 days and thereafter the complainant''s telephone be converted into the special category telephone. It was also directed that the bills are to be corrected after hearing the complainant. It was also directed that a speaking order should be passed. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also allowed as cost.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent who was present in person. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by limitation. In this connection, we find that the certified copy of the judgment was issued on 8.8.2001. The appeal has been filed on 14.5.2002 after a delay of about eight months. The period for filing the appeal is 30 days from the date of knowledge or issuance of the certified copy of the order. An application for condonation of delay has also been moved in the present case along with an affidavit in which the reasons for delay has been explained. A perusal of the affidavit will go to show that the D.E. (Legal) has filed the affidavit mentioning therein that the copy of the judgment and order passed by the District Forum on 30.4.2001 was not served on the opposite party/appellant. The certified copy of the judgment was communicated to the appellant on 8.8.2001. It is further alleged that the complainant has submitted two medical certificates of blindness on 11.5.2001 which were of dubious nature and they were attested prior to the date of registration. The copies of these certificates have been filed. It is further alleged that the complainant was requested to submit a certificate of blindness by letters. Ultimately, the complainant submitted a non-attested medical certificate of blindness on 4.4.2002 without any application for conversion of category for which he was directed by the District Forum. The department has re-examined his case and since his telephone was not functioning w.e.f. 12.8.1993 due to non-payment of bill, the category cannot be changed till the telephone is restored. The complainant was suitably informed about the stand of the department regarding his case by letters dated 17.4.2002 and 22.4.2002. The department waited till 11.5.2002 for compliance as requested but the complainant failed to do so. When there was no option left with the Telecommunication Department it filed this appeal. The appellant was willing to comply with the orders of the learned District Forum, as such an appeal was not filed after receiving certified copy of the order but due to non-ooperation of the complainant no other option was left but to file an appeal, hence the appeal was filed.

THE grounds stated for not filing the appeal in time are not at all convincing. Whether the appellant was not willing to get the compliance of the orders of the District Forum done cannot be a ground for not filing an appeal. THE appellant should have filed the appeal if it felt aggrieved against the judgment within a period of 30 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order. This was not done by the appellant and it waited for a period of eight months before filing the appeal. Now a lame execuse taken up by the appellant is that on account of non-compliance by the complainant, no other option was left with the Telecommunication Department but to file the appeal. When nothing more was to be done by the complainant except for filing the blindness certificate which he had already filed. THErefore, the grounds given by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation are not at all sufficient and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted. THE application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. Thus, the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.