TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs N.LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHARMA

THE Telecom District Manager, and the Divisional Engineer (External), Telecom Department, Pondicherry, are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum dated 11.8.1997 made in C. No. 61/97.

THE District Forum on a consideration of the complaint, counter and the materials placed before it found that there was not only deficiency in the service rendered by the appellants herein but also found negligence on the part of the appellants. In the light of the said finding the District Forum ordered remission of full rental charges for the period 29.11.1996 to 16.7.1997, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- besides a cost of Rs. 300/-.

Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the Telecom Department.

HEARD Mr. R. Balaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Dr. N. Lakshmi Narayana Sharma, the respondent appearing in person. The point that arises for consideration is whether deficiency on the part of the appellants as found by the District Forum has to be sustained ?

CONCEDINGLY the complainant applied for shifting of telephone on 29.11.1996. The appellants issued advice note on 3.12.1996. But the telephone connection was actually shifted on 16.7.1997 nearly after eight months. In other words for nearly eight months the complainant was deprived of telephone connection. No reason whatsoever has been given by the appellants as to what was the impossibility or other reason which prevented them from locating the telephone connection at the new address. The delay is eight months and definitely the District Forum is justified in holding that the appellants are not only guilty of lapses and negligence but their service is deficient. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity with the findings recorded by the District Forum, nor it is being contended that the finding of the District Forum is vitiated or it is based on misconception of facts. The findings of the District Forum deserves to be sustained.

HOWEVER, Mr. R. Balaraman, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the quantum of compensation awarded has to be reduced as according to him it is excessive. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. R. Balaraman. It is to be noted that the complaiannt is a medical practitioner and he had been made in accessible for nearly eight months. The resultant position was that he could not be reached even in case of emergency. The award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- is only a minimal and it cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive. Fortunately for the appellants, the respondent had not preferred an appeal complaining the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour. We do not see any justification to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum. 10. No other point has been argued. The appeal fails and it is dismissed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.