SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEPHONE T D E vs KALI CHARAN BEHERA

THE sole opposite party in C. D. Case No. 117 of 1998 has filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 24. 6. 1998 of the District Forum, Balasore directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500 to the complainant for causing deficiency in service to him.

COMPLAINANT/respondent filed the C. D. Case No. 117 of 1998 against the opposite party praying to direct opposite party to instal the telephone in his premises immediately and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation Rs. 500 for causing deficiency in service to him by not providing the telephone. According to the complainant, he having applied to the Telecom Department to supply him telephone facility to his residence situated at Routpada, he deposited registration fee of Rs. 1,000 on 13. 4. 1996 as per the advice note of the opposite party. During said period, two persons namely Pramod Mishra and Pravakar Senapati of village Routpada had applied for new telephone connections and deposited fees for connection. New telephone connections though were given to them in the month of November, 1997, yet complainant was not provided with telephone connection. Therefore, opposite party has caused deficiency in service to him. On the other hand, the opposite party states as per his written version that as the area of complainant is not technically feasible since no cable work can be made due to existence of Railway level crossing and since there was acute shortage of line material to draw over head line, it was not possible to supply him new telephone line. However, telephone line can be supplied at earliest possible time and in case complainant would apply to get back said amount of Rs. 1,000, the same can be refunded to him. On 27. 5. 1999, the day the C. D. Case was heard, opposite party had filed a petition stating therein that a new telephone connection bearing No. RPS-54662 has already been installed in the premises of the complainant on 19. 3. 1999 after receipt of required stores materials from the store depot. Thus the learned G. P. submitted to dismiss the C. D. case as there is already supply of new telephone connection. But, the District Forum held that by this opposite party has not shown any favour to the complainant who has already suffered due to the fault and negligence of the opposite party and directed opposite party as aforesaid vide its impugned orders dated 24. 6. 1999. The District Forum took a view that without obtaining technical feasibility report from his field staff, the opposite party should not have issued demand note dated 26. 3. 1996 asking complainant to deposit registration fee Rs. 1,000 before 15. 4. 1996. In this respect, District Forum relied upon a decision of the State C. D. R. Commission, Assam at Guwahati, reported in Dr. (Mrs.) Sulochana Kaur v. Union of India and Others, III (1993) CPJ 1391. At the same time, District Forum observed that opposite party has discriminated the complainant unreasonably though opposite party has given in November, 1997 new telephone connections to Pramod Mishra and Pravakar Senapati of the village of the complainant, the allegation of the complainant in this respect having not been denied in the written version or disproved adducing evidence. In view of these, the District Forum found opposite party to have caused deficiency in service to the complainant.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as none appeared for respondent. Perused the materials on record.

THIS order of the District Forum has been challenged in this appeal by the opposite party to the effect that the District Forum did not take into consideration the practical difficulty in providing new telephone line to the complainant due to non-available of store materials to draw overhead line and for the level crossing through which there cannot be cable connection. The aforesaid defence taken for non-feasibility of giving new telephone line to the complainant have not been established by the opposite party / appellant in any manner. If appellant could provide two new telephone connections in November, 1997 to aforesaid Sri Mishra and Sri Senapati, he could have similarly provided telephone line to the resident of the same village of the complainant. Therefore, the stand taken by appellant that giving telephone connection to the complainant was not feasible for the reason adopted by them cannot be accepted. Besides this, if it was not feasible for the reason assigned by the appellant, appellant has unnecessarily directed complainant on 26. 3. 1996 to deposit Rs. 1,000 before 15. 4. 1996 and detained said amount for three years till the telephone connection was given on 19. 3. 1999. Moreover, when giving this connection was not feasible, the appellant during said three years has never advised complainant to get refund the said amount of Rs. 1,000. This is how the appellant is at fault in not providing new telephone line without any sufficient reason for a period of three years and has unnecessarily withheld his money Rs. 1,000. Due to this, any body can easily imagine the mental anxiety and tension of the complainant, for which he should be compensated satisfactorily. We find the District Forum has rightly arrived into a reasonable order after proper application of mind to the case of both parties. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the impugned orders of the District Forum.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed on merit without cost. The impugned orders dated 24. 6. 1998 of the District Forum in C. D. Case No. 117 of 1998 is hereby confirmed. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.