Surinder Kumar vs Union of India

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.9.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) passed in Complaint Case No. 1378 of 1998, Sh. Surinder Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

THE facts giving rise to the present appeal, may briefly, be narrated as under : THE appellant/complainant, a practising Advocate in Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, resident of 3279/2, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh is a subscriber of Phone No. 695771 (Consumer No. 3109453). As per averments made, consequent to appellant/complainant shifting his residence on 16th September, 1998 to Mohali at House No. HE-324, Phase I, Mohali, applied for shifting of above mentioned telephone number at his new residence vide application brought on record as Annexure C-1. THE appellant/complainant has averred that inspite of his application, no advice note was issued by the respondents and when he approached the office of respondents/OPs, he was told by one Mr. Tuli, an employee of respondents that his file has been misplaced and allegedly, the appellant/complainant was directed to contact after a gap of 10 to 15 days. When the appellant/complainant again approached the respondents/OPs, the status of his application was the same i.e. the file could not be located and he was directed to come again after few days. THE appellant/complainant has alleged that he suffered a great deal of harassment and mental agony, even in knowing the fate of his application after numerous visits to the office of the respondents. The appellant/complainant has further alleged that no advice note till 30th November, 1998 had been issued and no order regarding shifting of aforesaid telephone was issued. However, a bill bearing No. 22214865 dated 1.11.1998 at revised rental rate of Rs. 360/- was issued by the respondents/OPs Department despite the change of meter on 13th September, 1998 and inspite of the fact that the telephone was not used by the complainant for the period mentioned in the bill. The appellant/complainant has averred that the respondents/OPs are not entitled to charge the rent in the absence of telephone being functional at his premises. The appellant/complainant deposited the amount payable in the bill on 25.11.1998 and copies of the same and the receipt issued are brought on record vide Annexure C-2. Further, the appellant/complainant on 1st December, 1998 contacted respondent/O.P. No. 3, Commercial Officer (Telephones), Mr. R. Ramaranjan regarding the status of his application for shifting the telephone, he was shocked to know that the position of the application was same. The appellant has alleged that he has been put to great financial loss in addition to inconvenience and harassment by the non-shifting of his telephone and payment of the bills issued to him unjustifiably by the respondents/OPs Department.

The appellant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on this score.

IN the reply filed through Mr. Vinod Kumar, S.D.E., it was not disputed that the concerned file was untraceable. The appellant had been informed vide letter dated 18.9.1998 to visit the respondents'' office for verification of his signature but the appellant failed to visit the office at that time. Later on, the appellant came to the office of the respondents on 1.12.1998 and order was issued after verification of his signature. The advice note bearing No. C-120006 dated 1.12.1998 for shifting the telephone of the appellant (Telephone No. 695771) was issued though the area was technically non-feasible. Resultantly, the phone could not be shifted. Reference was made to report dated 30.11.1998 and according to it, there were 46 subscribers in the waiting list prior to the appellant. The issuance of the bills by the respondent department was defended as being in order and according to rules of the department. The District Forum-I held the OPs deficient in service on account of disconnection of the telephone inspite of the area of Mohali where it was requested to be shifted being technically non-feasible. The District Forum-I further held that rent for that period when the telephone remained disconnected should not have been charged in the event of any payment having been made by the complainant to OPs when the phone was disconnected, OPs were directed to refund the same or readjust in his future bills. Hence this appeal.

THE appellant has submitted that he was deprived of the use of his telephone for seven months. THE respondent department first misplaced the file of the case and after three months of the issuance of notice by the District Forum-I, the advice notice dated 9.12.1998 was issued for the installation of his telephone at new address at Mohali. But the same was against the instructions vide letter dated 13.11.1998 of the Department to the effect that no advice note for the new connection as well as ICS/Local Shift/Temporary Connection in the area, to these areas may be issued till the area becomes technically feasible. THE appellant has also alleged that inspite of having clear instructions as above by the respondents Department to O.P. No. 3, it never informed the appellant and the facility of telephone was withdrawn on 13.9.1998. THE appellant has cited the cases of District Manager, Telephone v. Sh. S.K. Lamba, I (1999) CPJ 637=1999 (2) CON.LT Page 346, and Sh. Bhupinder Singh v. G.M.T., II (2002) CPJ 336=2001 (2) CON.LT page 372, wherein a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for disconnection of telephone for four days and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for depriving the complainant of his telephone was awarded. THE appellant has averred that the District Forum-I after accepting his complaint and finding the OPs deficient in services awarded compensation to the complainant which is unjustified, inadequate, not based on rationality and contrary to the view taken by this Commission in the above cited cases. In view of the above submissions, the appeal has been filed to enhance the compensation as prayed for in the complaint. We have heard the appellant, who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate. After going through the entire record of the complaint case and perusal of the impugned order appealed against, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents/OPs have been clearly deficient in rendering due services to the appellant. The District Forum-II has also though appreciated the facts of the case in giving a categorical finding about the deficiency in services rendered to the appellant/complainant and consequently in ordering the refund of the rental amounts paid by the complainant to the respondents-Department during the period when the telephone was non-functional. However, the District Forum-I has not taken into consideration the fact of the file of the complainant being misplaced in the office of respondents Department. This fact has been admitted in the reply wherein the OPs have clearly stated that the original file of Telephone No. 695771 was not available when the complainant had approached. That in order to deal with the matter, a duplicate file was made'' which amply proves and support the contention of the appellant that his case was also delayed primarily due to file having been misplaced in the office of respondents Department, which itself proves the deficiency in service provided by them to the appellant. The District Forum-I has not taken this fact into account while granting compensation on account of deficient services and harassment. In our considered opinion the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded in the instant case is on the lower side. In view of the deficiency in service and consequent harassment suffered by the appellant/complainant, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- will be just and adequate. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum-I is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- and the order of the District Forum-I regarding the payment made by the appellant to the OPs about the rent during the period when the phone was disconnected stands upheld. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.