Telecom District Man Acer Patna vs Ramdhyan Prasad

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 28th September, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Case No. 100 of 89 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent there was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE case of complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant had a telephone, bearing No. 21161 which was at his residence at North Mandiri, Patan. This was his personal telephone. But as the complainant was in Government service the bills used to be paid by the Governments Revenue Department. The complainant changed his residence to 78, Alokpuri Colony, Khajapura, Patna and therefore on 16.7.88 he applied to the opposite party in writing for transfer of his telephone to his new residence and the petitioner was informed that advice was sent to the S.D.O. Telephones, West Patna by Advice Note dated 21.7.88 and the shifting would be done soon. The complainant thereafter sent serval reminders to the telephone authorities for the shifting of his telephone. But not even a single letter was replied to by the opposite party. But the rental bill, in respect of that telephone were being received by the complainant and the complainant out of fear of disconnection of his telephone paid those bills. His telephone could be shifted to his new residence on 18.3.89 i.e., eight months after his application. But the telephone after working for 3 to 4 days went out order and inspite of several reminders to the opposite party to set it right, it could not be done though the telephone department bent on sending bills regularly and out of fear of his telephone being disconnected the complainant went on paying those bills. Due to this negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint and his family members one of whom is a doctor and another an advocate, suffered loss in professional work amounting to the tune of several lacs of rupees and on these grounds the complainant has prayed for compensation. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed counter version admitting that the application for the shifting of the telephone by the complainant was received in the office of the opposite party on 16.7.88 and thereafter shifting advice was sent vide Advice Note No. P/3735 dated 21.7.88 to the S.D.O. Phones, West Patna, but the telephone in question could not be shifted before 18.3.89 due to non -availability of cable pair. It was further averred on behalf of the opposite party that the telephone worked from 18.3.89 to 3.4.89 and went out of order on

4.89 AT 14 hours and was set right on 3.5.89 AT 16 hours after removing cable defect and the telephone again went out of order on 20.5.89 AT about 12 hours and was set right on 27.5.89 AT 13 -15 hours and thAT the telephone again went out of order on 2.6.89 and it was still dead because of cable fault and efforts were being made to set it right. 4. The case was disposed of by the District Forum on 30.10.89. But the complainant came in appeal before this Commission and the Commission by its order dATed 3.3.92 in Appeal No. 42/ 90 remanded the case to the District Forum to give its specific finding regarding the period during which the telephone of the complainant was found to be out of order and also on the point if the complainant was entitled to any compensATion which has been claimed by the complainant. The District Forum thereafter heard both the parties and by the impugned order it has directed to grant rebATe in rental for nine months from 15.7.88 to 18.3.89 i.e., from the dATe the complainant applied for shifting of his telephone from his old residence to the dATe on which the telephone was actually shifted to his new residence. The District Forum has also ordered for payment of compensATion of Rs. 500/ - to the complainant by the opposite party for the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

THE learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant before this Commission submitted that of course the complainant had applied for the shifting of his telephone from his old residence to his new residence, but he had not applied for the closing of his telephone and therefore he was not legally en titled to any rebate in rental for that period. But there is no merit in this submission on behalf of the appellant because admittedly if the telephone could not be shifted within fifteen days from the date of the application for non -availability of cable pair, the complainant was to be informed in time and it was to be ascertained from the complainant if the telephone at old place could be closed pending shift to new place. This was not done in the instant case. Hence the complainant is entitled to refund of the rental for that period. It is evident from the facts mentioned above that the complainant had sufferred inconvenience and mental anguish due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore a compensation of Rs. 500/ - as ordered by the District Forum is quite justified.

HENCE we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 250/ - as cost to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.