P.R. GUPTA vs TELECOM. DEPTT.

-BOTH these appeals arise out of the order dated 5.6.1996 made by the D.F., Jaipur-II under the following circumstances:

DR. R.P. Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was admittedly the consumer of the services of the respondent Telecom. Deptt. in respect of his telephone No. 061747 installed at his Government Bungalow No. 2, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. On 24.8.1992 he requested the respondent to shift the said telephone from his above mentioned residence to 2322, Pilani Bhawan, Nahargarh, Jaipur. Further request made by him in his application was that the said telephone be kept in safe custody during the period upto which it is shifted to his new residence. The benefit to accrue to the respondent by making such request was that whereas he could have been required to pay bi-monthly minimum charges at Rs. 260/- by keeping the telephone in safe custody he could have been required to pay monthly rent of Rs. 60/- only. His telephone however could not be shifted by the department and he was charged the minimum bi-monthly rent of Rs. 260/-. He thereupon filed his complaint before the D.F. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the department. The D.F. allowed his complaint vide its order under challenge and directed the department to shift his telephone and also pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by such order, the complainant has filed his appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and the department, on the other hand, has filed its appeal for cancellation of the said order. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

In the course of arguments we were informed that the telephone of the complainant has by now already been shifted to his new residence.

THE facts stated above clearly speak that despite complainant''s repeated written request his telephone could not be shifted from his old residence to his new residence for no satisfactory reasons. THE explanation offered by the department simply was that on making inquiries at his new residence it was know that the complainant was not residing there and, therefore, his telephone could not be shifted. Such report appears to have been obtained from some official of the department as late as on 7.12.1995. It is worth mentioning that prior to such report of the department the complainant had repeatedly required the department, vide his applications dated 22.3.1993, 24.3.1993, 3.5.1993, 1.6.1994 and legal notice dated 6.1.1994 not only to shift his telephone but also to charge rental @ Rs. 60/- per month from him and not at the rate of Rs. 260/- bi-monthly. In fact it was as late as on 30.10.1995 that the department had issued an office memo as "restoration slip" and it was thereafter that the report dated 7.12.1995 had been made. Such report did not bear the signature of any person of the locality. It was liable to be rejected as being unsatisfactory and has rightly been treated so by the D.F. In view of the above we hold that the department had rendered deficient services to the complainant. Insofar as the prayer made by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation is concerned we discuss the matter with the learned Counsel for the parties. In our opinion the amount awarded by the D.F. as compensation for mental agony is required to be upwardly revised. We, therefore, direct that the department shall pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- in place of Rs. 500/- only to the complainant in addition to the cost levied by the D.F. the order of the D.F. shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly and the appeal of the complainant allowed but the appeal of the department dismissed. The aforesaid amount of compensation plus cost of litigation shall be paid to the complainant within a period of two months from today failing which the aforesaid amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the impugned order till full and final payment. Ordered accordingly.