UNION OF INDIA vs SUDHA PAREEK

THERE has been a delay of 56 days in filing this appeal. After consideration we condone this delay.

THIS is an appeal against the order of the 9th of October, 1991 by the State Commission of Rajasthan in Complaint No. 99 of 1990 on its file. The State Commission has ordered the Appellant-Opposite Party to provide to the Respondent-Complainant a telephone connection within one month from the date of the order and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the delay in giving a telephone connection.

THE Appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission on the ground that the compliant before the State Commission was hopelessly time barred, that there was no lapse on its part in providing the telephone connection and that it was entirely due to the negligence, delay and latches on the part of the Respondent-Complainant that the telephone could not be installed at her residence and that it is beyond the competence of the Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act to give a direction to provide a telephone connection to the Respondent-Complainant.

THE relevant facts of the case may be briefly noticed : The Respondent-Complainant Dr. Sudha Pareek had applied for a telephone connection on 3rd October, 1981. She was entitled to priority in the matter of allotment being a medical doctor. The Appellant maintains that on 28th of October, 1983, orders were issued for installation of telephone but the same could not be installed as no responsible person was found at the address given by the Respondent. According to the Appellant these letters were sent by registered post to the Respondent regarding installation of telephone but there was no response from the Respondent. In consequence the Telephone Department closed the case for a telephone on 30th of July, 1984. In April, 1990 the Respondent filed a complaint against the Telephone Department for non-installation of the telephone before the State Commission, Rajasthan. From the State Commission''s order it is seen that the Respondent-Complainant claims to have sent several requests and letters to the Telephone Department which remained unreplied. The particulars of such letters have not been mentioned in the order. The date on which the Department had assured the Respondent that she would be provided a telephone connection when Sanganeri Gate Exchange is converted into electronic exchange is also not mentioned. There is a specific statement that she wrote a letter in April, 1990 regarding the installation of telephone and, on failing to get a reply she visited the Telephone Department personally when she learnt that her registration had been cancelled in 1984. Thereafter, she filed the complaint in the State Commission.

FROM the perusal of the material available in the paper book and after hearing the parties we find that there is no satisfactory evidence of her having pursued the matter between 1984 to 1990. If she was not getting reply to many of her requests and letters sent during this period, she could have as well contacted the officer concerned as she did in April, 1990. On the other hand we have no reason to doubt that the telephone connection was released to her in 1983 as claimed by the Appellant and the same could not be installed because of latches on her part and which eventually led to the closing of the case for allotment of the telephone in July, 1984.

WE have no reason to doubt the version of the Telephone Department that they did try to instal telephone and registered notices were returned undelivered. There is no evidence to support the respondent. Dr. Sudha Pareek''s version that the Telephone Department never visited her house or sent the communications. We cannot get away from the impression that she remained silent about the installation of telephone connection during 1985 to March, 1990. More importantly, the State Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the allotment of a telephone to the respondent as this is not a relief it can grant under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN view of this the appeal succeeds and the other of the State Commission is set aside. There is no order as to costs.