O.I.C.TELEPHONE vs Maniram

THE Telecom Department has filed this appeal against the order dated 6th August, 1997 passed in Case No. 15/1996 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panna (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE respondent is resident of the village Jaswantpura, Tehsil Gunour, District Panna alongwith 14 villagers applied for providing telephone connection and deposited Rs. 100/- each with Amanganj Telephone Exchange. However, the telephone connection was not provided. THE complaint filed was resisted on the ground that the villagers deposited Rs. 100/- with the application, who were kept in waiting list. After receipt of the sanction for providing telephone connection, the telephone was to be provided. In village Dwari the sanction was received, therefore, the telephone connection was provided to the villagers. No sanction for village Jaswantpura for laying telephone line for providing telephone connection was received. As soon as the sanction is received, the telephone connection will be provided. THE District Forum considering the circumstances of the case found deficiency in service awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for inconvenience and mental pain and directed for providing the telephone connection within a period of three months. Mr. K.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant relying on a decision of the National Commission in Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Sudha Pareek, II (1993) CPJ 240 (NC), contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to direct the allotment of telephone to the respondent as this is not a relief which can be granted under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short the ''Act''). It was submitted that an amount of Rs. 100/- was deposited as registered fee. After the receipt of the sanction, the demand notice was to be issued for deposit of the amount for providing new telephone connection. As the sanction was not received no line could be laid for providing telephone connection, therefore, there was no deficiency in service. At the most, the respondent was entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 100/- at the bank rate of fixed deposit.

After hearing Counsel and on reappraisal of evidence on record we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. The application of the respondent was only registered. The respondent was kept in the waiting list, awaiting the sanction for providing the telephone connection in the village but no sanction was received. The telephone connections were provided on receipt of sanction in nearby village Dwari would not give any right to the respondent to get the allotment of telephone. In the circumstances, the direction of the District Forum for providing telephone connection in view of the decision of National Commission in Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Sudha Pareek (supra), is without jurisdiction. As a consequence of this, the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is also illegal. However, the respondent is entitled to interest on Rs. 100/- at fixed deposit rate from the date of deposit till the telephone connection is provided to the respondent as per rules for providing new telephone connections.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs to this appeal. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case. Appeal allowed.