TELEPHONE DISTRICT MANAGER vs Punjab National Bank

THE Department of Telecommunication appeals against the order of the District Forum, Sonepat, allowing the respondent''s complaint and directing the refund of the deposited amount with interest and other ancillary reliefs.

WE are firmly of the view that the impeccable order under challenge has to be upheld and, therefore the facts and merits deserve notice with utmost brevity in this order of affirmance. Suffice it to mention that the respondent- Punjab National Bank admittedly applied for a new telephone connection way back on the 18th of October, 1987 and deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 800/- along therewith. It would appear that the appellant-Department made a further demand of Rs. 14370/- for the release of the connection, which was again duly paid vide receipt dated the 3rd of August, 1988, Despite an advice note having been issued by the Divisional Engineer, the telephone connection was not released for well high three years thereafter, compelling the respondents to cancel the demand and seeking the refund of the deposited amount. Though, the requisite formalities, therefor were completed, even this was not done and the registered notice was also issued without any response. Inevitably the respondent-Bank knocked at the door of the District Forum seeking the refund of Rs. 15170/- with interest at 18% and further compensation and costs. The appellant-department admitted the broad factual matrix of the respondent having applied and duly deposited the requisite amounts. But took up the somewhat specious plea that the telephone could not be released due to the non-receipt of "stores" from the higher authorities, Meanwhile the respondent could secure a connection from a different exchange and therefore cancelled his demand and it was admitted that he had applied for the refund of deposited amounts. But the strained plea was that various formalities, therefor could not be completed, till the 22nd of September, 1992, when a cheque in their favour was issued, but apparently forwarded much later alongwith the communication giving the details of the refund etc.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective case and the District Forum in a detailed order on consideration of the same rejected the appellant''s stand and granted relief in the terms noticed at the out-set.

MR. Babbar, the earned Counsel for the appellant-Department was somewhat at a loss to raise a meaningful argument in support of the appeal. It was argued that since the connection in favour of the respondent was a long distance one a delay of nearly four years in its release was justified. We are unable to find any modi-cum of merit in the submission aforesaid. It is common ground that after accepting the request on the 18th of October, 1987, the appellant department directed to respondents to deposit the assumed costs of Rs. 14,370/- obviously for the immediate release of the connection. Despite the same having been done on the 3rd of August,1988 there was no response worth the name for nearly three years till the respondent in disgust cancelled their demand and sought a refund of the amount. What is then surprising is that even this reasonable request was not acceded to with effect from the 25th of May, 1991, compelling the respondents to resort to the consumer jurisdiction. It was only after the filing of the complaint that the appellant-Department chose to tender the due amount and what is more they sought to make unauthorised deductions towards estimated charges etc. All this would be patently a grave deficiency in the services, which a public utility Department extends out to their subscribers and consumers. The District Forum was thus right in according to the relief, which it has done and in a judgment of affirmance, we are disinclined to traverse the same grounds over again apart from recording that we agree with its rationale and conclusion.

FOR the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed With costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/-only. Appeal dismissed with costs.