TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, PONDICHERRY TELECOM DISTRICT vs C.S.LATHA

THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Pondicherry in Complaint No. 95/99 dated 10.11.1999.

THE respondent has applied for shift of telephone connection from Pondicherry to Coimbatore. THEre was a later requisition to permanently disconnect her telephone connection with a request to refund the deposit amount. THE telephone was under OYT category. THE first requisition was made on 5.4.1998 and the amount deposited was Rs. 15,000/-. THEre was an inordinate delay of 6 months and above and still there was no improvement in the shifting. According to the rules of the order No. 2-46/94-TR dated 30.12.1994, refund should not be delayed beyond 60 days. Such refund was not made inspite of repeated requests by the respondent for permanent closure of her phone.

The learned Counsel for the appellant denies all the allegations. He vehemently argued that a letter was received by the Office of the TDM Pondicherry dated 23.4.1998 for the transfer of her Telephone No. 252072 to Coimbatore.

THE learned Counsel submits that as advice notice was issued by the Department on 28.4.1998 to the Divisional Engineer concerned both by the internal and external division for the closure of the telephone under "All India Shift Scheme" and there was also another advice dated 8.10.1998 from the Sub Divisional Engineer, Pondicherry to the Accounts Officer requesting him to finalise the accounts of the respondent. All these are belated and they demonstrate deficiency in service. The accounts were finally approved by the Accounts Officer on 30.11.1998 and the respondent was entitled for the refund of Rs. 11,425/-. And a letter dated 22.4.1999 from the Accounts Officer requesting the respondent to send a stamped receipt and also requesting her to send the new phone connection registration particulars at Coimbatore and further he also informed that these Surrender Certificate should be sent to her separately which was received on 22.2.1999.

THERE was a letter from the respondent requesting for closure of telephone instead of "All India Shift". Once again on 24.5.1999 the Accounts Officer sent a letter to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Pondicherry for the closure of the telephone stating all the above facts. The delay had made the complainant to seek for refund. The Counsel for the appellant reiterated that there was no deficiency in the service and that the respondent did not send the advance receipt for further process of her case. Hence the respondent was not entitled for the compensation and costs. This contention had been rejected as unsustainable on the facts as very many requests and demands made remained unattended for several months. Even after lapse of six months the opposite parties have not chosen to close and settle the accounts. Hence there is deficiency. After hearing the arguments we hold that all such procedures for shifting or refund of the deposit should be completed expeditiously and the refund should not be delayed beyond 60 days. For delay, if any, caused interest is payable at the rate payable for a Term Deposit of 45 days fixed by SBI. There is no reason for the delay caused in sending the Surrender Certificate and getting it back for the purposes of completing the process with a request of permanent closure. The appellant did not refund the deposit despite request for permanent closure and demands from 27.1.1999 to 5.7.1999 - a period of six months and above. There was undue delay and negligence on the part of the appellant which constitutes definite deficiency as found by Forum below. The findings rendered and conclusion of the Forum below are well-considered and we hold that no case has been made out for interference.

HENCE this Forum has no hesitation to hold that there is delay and deficiency in the service rendered by the appellant. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.