TELECOM, District-Dhenkanal vs BRAMHANANDA NAYAK

THIS appeal has been directed against the orders dated 30.11.2004 passed in C.D. Case No. 115 of 2004 by the District Forum, Dhenkanal directing the opposite parties of the C.D. case who are the appelants, to give new telephone connection to the residence of the complainant/respondent within a month and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000 to the respondent.

THE case of the complainant in brief is that, he had applied to the appellants to give telephone connection to his residence at village-Barsupal under Bhapur Exchange. After one year, the appellants issued demand note to the complainant on 15.10.2003 with a request to deposit Rs. 500 on or before 6.11.2003 towards new telephone connection. THE complainant/respondent deposited said amount vide money receipt dated 16.10.2003 (whose xerox copy is filed). But the appellants did not give telephone connection to his residence though one year passed away and have given new telephone connection to Kulamani Baral of Swapneswar High School at Kahudi Bhoga and Sridhara Sahoo. Inspite of several requests of the respondents, the appellants did not give telephone connection. THErefore, respondent filed the aforesaid C.D. case against the appellant alleging deficiency in service against them and to direct them to give telephone connection, and to give him compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite parties have admited about the application by the respondent for a new telephone connection and also about issuance of demand note to the respondent in consequence to which he has deposited Rs. 500 on 16.10.2003, in their written version. But they have stated that as technically it was not feasible, they could not provide such facility to his premises. According to them as no spare cable were available, they had wanted for its availability to give such connection. A Circular No. 3-4/98R dated 30.4.1998/endevour is to be made to provide telephone connection within two years for non-OYT registration from the month following the month of payment of registration fees. Also the registration fee also carries wanting charges from the date of payment till the day of immediately proceeding the day of connection @ interest payable by S.B.I. on the fixed deposits made with S.B.I. In these end of the view, according to the appellants, they have not caused deficiency in service to the appellant who is not a consumer.

The District Forum held that the respondent as a consumer under the appellants and directed the appellants as aforesaid vide orders dated 30.11.2004 finding them guilty for deficiency of service. The appellants have challenging this order as illegal and arbitrary as per this appeal.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the respondent as none appeard for the appellants and perused the xerox copies of documents filed in the appeal. It is admitted by the opposite parties / appellants that they had issued demand note dated 15.10.2003 and after this they have received registration fee of Rs. 500 from the respondent as per a receipt dated 16.10.2003 to give him telephone connection. Therefore, the respondent is a consumer under them. It is not disputed that till filing of the C.D. Case, the appellants have not given telephone connection to the residence of the respondent. Therefore, the question arises as to whether appellants have caused deficiency in service by not providing telephone connection to the respondent.

THE Demand note dated 15.10.2003 issued by the appellants shows that the appellants have put a seal thereby undertaking "Either NTC will be provided written one year subject to feasibility or the amount will be refunded with interest as per rules.". Demand note discloses that registration fee has been collected for New Telephone connection in short NTC. Though according to the appellants it was not feasible to give telephone connection due to non-availability of spare cable, yet they have not established this where as they have given such connection to Kulamani Baral of the village of the respondent and to Sridhara Sahu in the meantime. THErefore, doubt arises in respect to genuine conduct of the appellants that due to non-availability of spare cable, N.T.C. Could not be provided to the respondent. Moreover, the appellants have not made any endeavour either to intimate about non-feasibility of giving N.T.C. for the said reason or returned the registration fee deposited with them by the respondent with waiting charges with S.B.I. rate of interest though one year elapsed. Thus we find that the appellants are guilty for causing deficiency in service to the respondent. THErefore, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid orders and direction dated 30.11.2004 of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without cost. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith Appeal dismissed.