GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, JALANDHAR vs OM PARKASH KAMBOJ

THIS appeal is by the Telephone Department, challenging order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated April 22,1996. Vide this order, the following relieves have been granted against the appelant to the consumer Om Parkash Kamboj, a user of the telephone. Refund of Rs. 3,600/- with 1 percent interest per month as the complainant was made to pay this amount on utilisation of telephone obtained on medical grounds. Apart from the above, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards damages was allowed and sum of Rs. 500/- towards costs.

THE complainant obtained telephone connection in August, 1991 on medical grounds. Upto Sept., 1993, he availed of that facility. He applied for another telephone of the general category, which was changed to OYT category in April'', 1991 on deposit of Rs. 7,000/- more. AT that time, the house of the complainant was to be served through Model Town Exchange. Subsequently, the Exchange was changed to E 10-B Exchange (Master Tara Singh Nager Exchange). Since for more than 3 years telephone was not provided to the complainant he approached the District forum for relief. THE reply filed by the "Telephone department was that since the Exchange was shifted and his seniority even in the original Telephone Exchange had not matured, telephone could not be granted. It may be observed at this stage that it was during the pendency of the complaint before District Forum that an instrument was installed at the premises of complainant on March 7,1994 on maturity of his turn and actually it was made operational on Sept., 15, 1995 from Master Tara Singh Nager Exchange. THEse facts are incorporated in the written arguments submitted by the Telephone department before the District Forum. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the grant of Rs. 3,600/- refund of the rental of the telephone obtained on medical grounds, even if there was deficiency is uncalled for. There is force in this contention. Obtaining telephone on medical grounds invites extra payment of rental and that has nothing to do with the question of obtaining telephone in General category or OYT Category. It was urgent need of the complainant that he obtained the telephone connection on medical grounds and he was to pay for the same as per tariff. Thus refund of amount of Rs. 3,600/- as rental charges for the telephone obtained on medical grounds is un-called for.

The question for consideration is as to whether there was any deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department in granting new telephone under OYT. Admittedly when telephone instrument was placed at the premises of the complainant, it is to be taken that his turn matured and it was to be made operational forth with otherwise mere was no use of completing the wiring and putting the instrument at his residence. Telephone is a necessity and is not mere a decorative piece for the drawing room. The department took six months to make it operational for which there is no apparent reason put-forward. We are conscious of the fact that though specifically in these lines plea was not in the complaint, but generally, complaint was for non-installation of telephone for a period of three years and the plea would otherwise be covered. Holding that there was deficiency on the part of the telephone department for not making telephone operational for six months, complainant is to be compensated.

IT has been argued by the Counsel for the respondent-consumer that the respondent is a professional person - practising Advocate at Jalandhar and he professionally suffered on account of non-availability of the telephone. IT may be so but we are of the view that mere has to be some material to show that on account of nonavailability of telephone factually he suffered some lose. In the absence of any such material we are left with guess work and to allow token damage. The District Forum allowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as damages. In our view a sum of Rs. 3,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In place of Rs. 2,000/- as already awarded by the District Forum, the amount stands increased to Rs. 3,000/- Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that specifically on account of professional loss, some more amount should be allowed. This contention cannot be accepted as the complainant has not challenged the order of the District Forum, wherein no amount of professional loss was allowed. The consolidated amount of Rs. 3,000/- as awarded by this Commission would be in the circumstances of the case, justified. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified and the complainant would be paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 500/- as costs awarded by the District Forum. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.