Union of India vs Modi Industries

THIS appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated December 10, 1996 directing the Telephone Department to release the telephone connection to the complainant on or before January 31,1997 and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation. The complainants are M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala and its proprietor Shri Jagdish Raj Modi. On deposit of Rs. 800/- on December 31, 1976, the complainant applied for a new telephone connection. After waiting for number of years without getting the telephone connection and on coming to know that the Telephone Department had issued telephone connections to others who had applied later on, the complainant approached the District Forum in April, 1996 with the complaint for a direction to the Telephone Department for releasing the telephone connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and pay interest on the amount of Rs. 800/- @ 18% p.a. from December 24, 1996 till installation of the telephone. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,100/- were also claimed.

THE Telephone Department contested the complaint while submitting its version. THE facts as alleged in the complaint that the complainant had applied for telephone connection on deposit of Rs. 800/- were admitted. It was further stated that the matter was investigated and premises of M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala were not located. When the matter was put up in the Lok Adalat, the complainant was asked to submit copy of the Partnership Deed, but the same was not done. Hence, there was no deficiency in rendering service; the complaint was alleged to be barred by time; the complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands; the complaint was false and frivolous, filed to harass the officials of the Department. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. An application was filed by the complainant calling upon the Telephone Department to produce his original Application for the grant of telephone connection, original Demand Notice calling upon the complainant to deposit Rs. 800/- and copies of the Legal Notices issued by the complainant to the Department dated May 26,1994 and March 15,1996. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the Department stating that there was no need for production of such documents for just decision of the case and the documents demanded were baseless. THE District Forum found deficiency in rendering service in not granting the telephone connection to the complainant when his turn came and thus the necessary directions were given as referred to above. Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has argued that the stale claim was not required to be entertained by the District Forum. The alleged payment was made as back as in December, 1976 and thereafter the complainant did not approach the Telephone Department for installation of the telephone connection. Thus, he was not interested in getting the telephone and the complaint was barred by time. Reference has been made to the decision of the National Commission in Satish Chandra Jha v. Bihar State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd. & Anr., II (1995) CPJ 66 (NC); Asian Trading Company v. Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Drilling & Hand Pump Division, II (1995) CPJ 250 (NC) and Jit Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (1995) CPJ 17 (Punj.). The ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to the case in hand. The cause of action for filing the complaint in the present case is continuous till the prayer for installation of the telephone is rejected, which would be finally giving cause of action. No such decision ever was taken by the Telephone Department rejecting the application for any reason that it could be said that cause of action accrued thereon and the question of limitation for filing the present complaint could be considered. The fact cannot loss sight of that in 1976 when the complainant applied for telephone connection, ordinarily turn for installation of telephone would take about 8 years or a decade. It was not expected of the complainant till he receives intimation of coming up his turn to approach the Telephone Department. When the filing of the application and deposit of the requisite amount of Rs. 800/- is not denied by the Telephone Department, it was the Telephone Department who was to act thereon. Non-action on their part in this respect will not shift the blame on the complainant that he had not approached the Telephone Department earlier.

It is only after the complainant served Legal Notice as noticed above that in order to cover up the fault of the Department, it prepared a report about non-existence of the premises where the telephone was sought to be installed. It is in this connection that the original application for installation of the telephone was required to be examined as to whether sufficient address was given where the telephone was sought to be installed. Otherwise, Barnala is a small town and it was not difficult for the Telephone Department to locate the premises address of which is also mentioned on the Demand Notice as Hardiyagu Road (Hardya Road), Barnala, Ex. Cl. Even at the time when the matter was before the Lok Adalat, it was not difficult when the complainant and the Telephone Department represented, to specify the premises where the telephone could be installed. Even at that stage, the Telephone Department was insisting that the complainant should produce copy of the partnership deed to verify whether the partnership existed or not. This fact is also mentioned in Ex. R1, the report of the SDO, which is undated. As per affidavit of the complainant, there was no partnership that any such deed could be produced. Jagdish Raj claimed to be the proprietor of M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala. The Department thus wrongly insisted in order to cover up their fault for the partnership deed when no such partnership ever existed.

THE contention of Counsel for the appellant that it was a bona fide act on the part of the Telephone Department not to instal the telephone when the complainant was not having his industry at the address given. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Union of India v. N. Vasudevan, I (1993) CPJ 84 (NC)=1993 (1) CPR 104. No help can be sought by the Telephone Department from the aforesaid decision. In the present case, the action of the Department does not appear to be bona fide when for years together no action was taken on the application filed by the complainant more so when his turn came. As a matter of fact, no specific stand has been taken up by the Telephone Department as to when the turn of the complainant came for installation of the telephone and the Telephone Department promptly took action thereon. Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department also argued that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer merely on payment of Rs. 800/- as Registration Fee. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi State Commission in R.N. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., III (1995) CPJ 328, and Gautam Rasiklal Chudgar v. Union of India & Another, II (1993) CPJ 922. The ratio of the decisions aforesaid is not applicable to the case in hand. On deposit of Rs. 800/-, the name of the complainant was required to be considered alongwith others. Since the Telephone Department did not consider his name when his turn came for consideration, the complainant being a potential user of the telephone, was a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The contention is, therefore, repelled.

LEARNED Counsel for the Telephone Department also argued that the complainant did not suffer any specific loss that compensation of Rs. 5,000/- could be awarded under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the National Commission in General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Mauli Chand Sharma, II (1995) CPJ 183 (NC). As far as proposition of law is concerned, there is no dispute that under Section 14(1)(d), compensation is to be awarded on proof of sufferance of any loss on account of negligent act on the part of the opposite party. In the present case, the complainant has successfully established negligent act on the part of the opposite party in not considering the application for the grant of new telephone connection at the relevant time. Negligence or in other words deficiency in rendering service is writ large entitling the complainant to compensation. In such like cases, it is not possible to determine as to what actual loss the complainant had suffered for want of telephone. The complainant being an industrialist, chances of promoting his business with the telephone facility cannot be ruled out. In such cases, only rough estimation of compensation could be made and direction to pay the same can be ordered. Grant of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in view of the peculiar facts of the case as referred to above is not at all excessive to call for interference. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. Costs are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.