TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER GWALIOR vs SHANTA SINHAL

THE Applicant preferred an appeal against the impugned orders aforesaid, which was filed after two months and 24 days delay. THE delay was attributed to pressure of work and departmental delay in movement of file. As held in I (1991) CPJ 432 P.H.S. Deptt. of District Forum Bikaner, the test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by a party by exercise of due care and attention, i.e. whether it is a bona fide cause inasmuch as nothing shall be demand to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. Thus, there was no sufficient cause and this application for condonation was rejected, such departmental delays are becoming rule refers than an exception; and it is high time Government Deptt. take a note of such situations. However, the Appeal (No. 36/91 was converted into a Revision and heard accordingly. THE Revision challenges the legality of orders of the District Forum which has awarded interest on refund of security deposit Rs. 1640/- for temporary connection of Phone @ 12 P.C. per annum + Rs. 50/- as mis-expenses, and Rs. 100/- as Advocate''s fees.

IT is common ground that the complainant Smt. Shanta Sinhal was provided a temporary telephone connection No. 28326 w.e.f. 25.6.88 for which she deposited requisite security amount Rs. 2,760/- on 15.6.88. Later she applied for extention upto 24.8.89 which was done and she deposited further amount Rs. 960/- on 8.12.88. But before the expiry of the period i.e. 25.6.89, at subscriber''s request, the telephone was disconnected on 12.2.89. Same day, she filed an application dated. 6.3.89 for refund of security amount. The complainant''s case is that the Telephone was disconnected on 22.2.89. But inspite. of her repeated reminder the outstanding balance of Security deposit Rs. 1,640/- was paid belatedly, on 22.8.89. She claimed interest thereupon @ 2% per month.

None appeared on behalf of the applicant and the learned Forum proceeded ex parte. P.W.I Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sinhal Advocate, who happens to be the husband of the complainant, was examined as a witness and e -parte order referred above were passed.

FIRSTLY, the learned Counsel Shri K.K. Jain urged that the learned Forum has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction legally and with material regularity on as much as interest could not be awarded on amount of Security-deposit as specifically provided on the Statutory Rules or Departmental Manual Swamy''s Practice on Telephone Rules (Published by Swamy Publisher (P) Ltd. Sundhya Mansions 164 R.K. Murthy Road Madras) was referred. Page 17 though it refers to "Temporary and casual connections - duration and conditions, the condition (b) which is relied upon, reads''''. Security deposit is payable as prescribed by the Competent Authority; this deposit does not bear interest". In our view Security deposit is taken to safeguard any dues which may be found outstanding against the subscriber, and therefore, there is no question of paying interest thereon, when it is refunded. But then, the aforesaid rule does not mean that no interest at all could be awarded under any circumstances. The subscriber in the instant complaint has claimed interest for inordinate and unreasonable delay in refund of that amount payable. To recall, Telephone was disconnected on 22.2.89. The learned Counsel was unable to show any provision that the subscriber could not have applied for disconnection earlier to the date of expiry, which was 25.6.89. It was urged that the refund was made after the "Billing Cycle" was completed when a phone is disconnected. Some time is usually taken in Departmental seclious, and that is why the learned Forum has very highly given a margin of two months. In other words, that has been held to be a reasonable period for refund. But between date of disconnection and application (6.2.89) and date of payment (22.8.89) a period of 6 months 17 days intervened. Is it a reasonable period for refund? The learned Forum therefore, after allowing fairly a reasonable period awarded interest only for a period of 4 months 17 days. Once the purpose and object of security Deposit was over after disconnection, the Parties i.e. Telephone Deptt. and subscriber were virtually relegated to the position of debtor and creditor, respectively. The principal of "debtor must find the Creditors" is attracted.

AS stated by P.W.-l Shri Sinhal''s application Exp. 1. It was filed on 6.2.89 which bears Departmental acknowledgement followed by five reminders dt. 16.3.89, 27.5.89, 25.6.89, 25.3.90 and 23.10.90 (Expt. P-2 to P-5) Rs. 1,640/- were paid on 22.8.89. To repeat delay of Four months and 17 days was unreasonable and the rule relied upon is not a hurdle to claim interest for refund. Unreasonable delay in Refund amounts to ''deficiency in service''. No interest of-course was payable as including the amount remained by way of Security Deposite. In the case of M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd. and L.M.L. Customers Service call, I (1991) CPJ 139 interest for particular period and further penal interest at the rates of 9 P.C. and 11 P.C. respectively were awarded @ 12 P.C. p.a. is not excessive. Secondly it was urged that the award of Rs. 100/- as Counsel-fees is also illegal. In the instant case the learned Advocate filed power on 15.11.90, and being the husband of the complainant who must have dealt with matter as such, appeared as a witness. He was a necessary witness and should not have appeared as a witness without cancelling Wakalat-Nama. (Referred: AIR. 1948 Madras page -In the matter of pleader, Madura - a case under legal Practitioner''s Act). Of-course, he could have appeared as authorised "agent" or representative for the complainant. Suffice to state that Rs, 100/- awarded as Advocate''s Fees was not proper. In the result, this revision partly succeeds. The orders impugned dt. 31.12.90 are maintained with a modification, and so far as they relate to the award of Rs. 100/- as Counsel-fees they are set aside. The applicant shall bear his costs of revision and pay Rs. 300/- as costs to the complainant/ N.A. This order be complied within two months of the receipt of communication.

BEFORE parting, as observed, that the delay is attributed to the Department which has been saddled with financial'' liability. But it is some negligent individual official who must have caused this callous delay. In the interest of efficiency and promptness in the discharge of duty owed to the public, it would be worthwhile if the Department'' locates the delinquent and takes suitable action, so that history itself does not repeat. Revision partly allowed.