SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELEGRAPHS, HISAR vs BAL KISHAN MITTAL

TELEPHONE department has come up in appeal against the order dated 21st June, 1995, passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Hisar, whereby, direction has been issued to provide a telephone connection to the complainant, as he had booked the telephone as back as on 7th March, 1986, by depositing Rs. 800/-for the installation of the phone.

COMPLAINANT Bal Kishan Mittal, approached the District Forum, in 1993 with a grievance that even though, he had applied for the installation of the telephone and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 800/-on 7th March, 1986, yet, neither, he has been given the priority number nor the telephone connection has been released. Notice of the complaint was issued and the Telephone department, through its Inspector, appeared on 21st April, 1994, but despite reported adjournments were granted from time to time no reply was filed by the Telephone department. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, had no option, but to accept all the allegations of the complainant, taking as correct as the same was duly evidenced by the receipt, received by him for Rs. 800/-, issued by the Telephone Department vide No. 6507 /164 dated 7th March, 1986. As a necessary consequence, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, with the direction to release the telephone connection to the complainant expeditiously and awarded damages of Rs. 2,500/-for delaying the telephone connection for about a decade.

Neither in the memorandum of appeal, nor at the time of arguments, any thing has been stated with regard to failure of the Telephone Department, in not filing the reply to the complaint and contested the same before the District Consumer Forum. All what has been stated is, that the Telephone staff of the department visited the premises of the respondent-complainant, number of times, but he was not available there and it was reported that he was residing at Charkhi Dadri.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel and having gone through the report of the staff mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the same, firstly there is no explanation, forth-coming as to why the telephone connection was not released, for about a decade and secondly, no effort, whatsoever was ever made by the Telephone Department to file the reply before the District Consumer Forum and to contest the complaint. The report, referred to is also dated 28th June, 1995 i.e., a week later, than the date of decision of the complaint by the District Consumer Forum. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs, which are fixed as Rs. 1000/-. The Telephone Department is directed to grant the telephone connection, forthwith, at the aforesaid premises within a month from today, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Appeal dismissed with costs.