TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs N.SIVARAJAN

THE Telecom District Manager, Pondicherry and the Assistant Engineer, Ozhandal, Keeralpalayam Telephone Exchange, Pondicherry are the appellants in this appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry, dated 12.10.1998 in C. No. 100/98, this appeal has been preferred.

HEARD Mr. R. Balaraman, Government Pleader, for the appellants and the respondent appearing in person. While challenging the findings of the District Forum Mr. R. Balaraman, learned Counsel for appellants contended that the telephone connection given to Mr. Natarajan falls under a "special category" and therefore, the complainant is not justified in relying on the said material and hence reliance placed on the said material by the District Forum vitiates the order. It was also contended that the complainant has been given telephone connection as per his turn and therefore, he cannot have any grievance or complaint for deficiency in the services rendered by the appellants. The District Forum after consideration of the material aspects found that though the complainant has registered his application earlier in point of time and remitted necessary fee. He has not been given the connection till the disposal of the complaint and also recorded a finding that there was no justification to treat the complainant differently from other applications registered at or about the same time for the area served by the Exchange.

Mr. R. Balaraman, learned Counsel for the appellants heavily relied on the application of Mr. R. Natarajan, M/s Renuka Paper Products and according to the learned Counsel the said application falls under "Non-OYT Special Category" and the said application has been recommended by the TAC Member and preference has been given.

ACCORDING to Mr. R. Balaraman learned Counsel, it is a special category. On a perusal of the file, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of Mr. Balaraman learned Counsel. Though the applicant Natarajan had submitted his application under the Non- OYT Special Category, it has to be pointed out that he had not applied for telephone facility for his factory, viz. the Small Scale Factory which alone is eligible for special category. On the contrary the said Natarajan submitted his application to his residence and the purpose mentioned in the application being "residence" only. On a perusal of the application filed by Natarajan it is noticed that only for residential purpose the application has been submitted. The factory of Mr. Natarajan is away from his residence, that is 20 kms. from the place to which he had sought for telephone connection. The registration certificate produced by Mr. Natarajan is valid only for one year and it has lost its value on the date of very application itself. As already pointed out the application of Mr. Natarajan is filed for his residential purpose. Also it has to be pointed out that except referring to a recommendation by the TAC Member, the file relating to such recommendation by and the placement before the Telephone Advisory Committee had not been placed before this Commission to verify.

THAT apart, even after the District Forum allowing the complaint by directing the opposite parties to give phone connection within a month''s time from the date of the receipt of the order and in default to do so shall pay interest on the sum of Rs. 3,000/- remitted at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the order till phone connection is given, the telephone connection has not been given to the complainant. It is admited that only after filing an execution petition and that too only on 15.3.1998 the complainant has been given a telephone connection. Thus the conduct of the appellants in all respects would show that the complainant''s grievance is genuine and the findings of the District Forum in our view is right and it cannot be interfered with. The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant besides directing payment of 10% interest on Rs. 3,000/- deposited from the date of order till phone connection is given, besides awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs.

THE respondent appearing in person also pointed out that in the counter what has been stated by the appellants is that there is no technical feasibility for granting the connection and the appellants are expected to have gone through the feasibility of providing telephone connection before accepting the money. This stand of the appellants has been given up. THEre are no merits in the contentions put forth by the appellants.

HOWEVER, on the facts of the case we are of the view that award of Rs. 1,000/- alone as compensation would serve the interest of justice and the award of interest and costs are accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above, but without costs. Appeal partly allowed.