SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELECOMMUNICATION vs K.C.PANDA

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants. Respondent is absent inspite of notice.

THE respondent is a telephone subscriber whose telephone was disconnected once on 16.2.1991 and was restored on 17.2.1991 as it was found that he had lodged a complaint against the quantum of bill dated 1.10.90. THE telephone was again disconnected on 20.3.1991 on the allegation that the bill which was submitted to him thereafter was not paid within the time permitted. It was restored on 21.3.1991 as it was found that the bill had been paid by the respondent, which intimation did not reach the Telecom Department. Thus, in all the telephone was disconnected for two days, as stated above, for which the respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 5000/-. An apology was submitted before the District Forum where the case was heard. THE President of the District Forum was of the view that in view of the aforesaid apology the Telecom Department should be excused with a warning. THE other members, however, did not agree with the said conclusion and, therefore, by a majority view the compensation of Rs. 200/- was awarded against the Telecom. Department. THE Telecom. Department is in appeal against the said order. It has, however, been brought to our notice that the respondent has filed an appeal before this Court, which was registered as C.D. Appeal No. 49 of 1992 being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. The State Commission has disposed of the said appeal on 4.4.1993 dismissing the same.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that during hearing of the case before the District Forum they expressed their regrets and prayed to be excused for the inadvertent mistake in disconnecting the telephone in the aforesaid occasions. It has also been argued that the bona fides of the Telecom. Department is apparent from the fact that soon after it has been brought to their notice about their inadvertent mistake, the telephone connection was restored. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has brought it to our notice that the President of this Forum was satisfied about the bona fides of the Telecom. Department for which the President proposed to excuse the Department with a warning and, therefore, he argued that there was no justification for awarding any compensation as has been done in the impugned order.

HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length, we are of the view that there is no merit for interference. This is because, it can be hardly doubted that there was deficiency in service rendered by the Telecom. Department as there was no justification for disconnection of the telephone on either of the occasions. In the circumstances, once the deficiency in service is found, the compensation awarded cannot be interfered with. We therefore, find no merit in this case and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The compensation awarded be adjusted in the next bill/bills. Appeal dismissed.