MADRAS TELEPHONES vs N. GOPALAKRISHNAN

THE opposite parties (1) Commercial Tax Officer; (South) and (2) Assistant Engineer (Instal) of Madras Telephones, against whom an award has been passed are the Appellants. THE complainant (respondent herein) owned a telephone Bearing No. 410122. He preferred an application dated 1.7.94 to the opposite parties for shifting the telephone to the new address furnished by him. THE shifting was effected on 17.1.95. It is according to the complainant that the delay of more than six months has caused him hardship and this amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Further, for the period from 18.7.94 to 1.1.95 he was entitled to rental rebate, but the opposite parties had not given the rebate and that also amounted to deficiency in service on their part. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for compensation.

THE opposite parties contended that due to some reasons the shifting could not be done earlier. According to them, due to rash driving of a vehicle damage was caused to Pillar 65 which was leading to the area in which the new address of the complainant situated and to instal a new pillar and make cable arrangements it took time upto January, 1995. THEse things happened due to reasons beyond their control. THEy further pleaded that the complainant was entitled to rebate and they undertook to give rebate in the subsequent bills. So here also there is no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum, on consideration of evidence, came to the conclusion that even if the reason given by the opposite party for the delay in shifting is true, they need not have taken so long time i.e., more than six months and, therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Then it held that mere undertaking given for rebate is not sufficient and there was no explanation as to why the rebate has-not been given in the bills already issued for the period from 1.10.94 to 31.1.95. Hence there was deficiency in service on this ground also. In the result, the District Forum granted an award of Rs. 5,000/- compensation on both the grounds of deficiency in service. I also ordered costs of Rs. 500/-.

Now in the appeal, it is contended that the opposite party has given reasons as to why the delay had occurred, but the District Forum has not given due consideration for that. It is further contended that the District Forum is wrong in holding that the opposite party was deficient in service in not giving the rental rebate. On a careful consideration, we are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the Appellants. We find it difficult to disagree with the finding of the District Forum that the reasons given by the opposite parties for the delay is not sufficient for the long delay of more than six months. It must be remembered that when a person who has got a phone wants his phone shifted to some other area, he is in immediate need of the phone which he was already used to. The opposite parties should have considered this aspect and should have shifted the phone without loss of any avoidable time. As regards the alleged rebate in the rentals, the only ground stated in the appeal grounds is that the Department itself has stated that the complainant is eligible for rental rebate and it has undertaken to give the rebate in the subsequent bills and this has not been considered by the District Forum. It is not explained in the grounds of appeal why rebate has not been given in the bills already issued for the period from 1.10.94 to 31.1.95. Thus we find no merit in the appeal.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.