SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (TELEPHONES) Vs. SUSIL KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was the complainant. He filed complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. His case is that he is a businessman who deals with hardware and building materials at Rairangpur. He has got telephone No. 22047 installed in the year 1989 at his shop. He has been regularly paying the telephone bills in respect of the aforesaid telephone number. In course of time as his business expanded and family members wanted to have another telephone connection, he applied to the appellants by making necessary deposits. Although he complied all the requirements, the appellants did not provide him with the second telephone on the plea that there are some outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 2041 which was in the name of his uncle. The respondent pleaded and filed an affidavit before the departmental authorities stating that he has absolutely no connection with his uncle and, therefore, even if there was some outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 2041, he cannot be denied the second connection.

(2.) ON consideration of the facts and circumstances, the District Forum has held that without verifying the allegation of the respondent that he had no connection with his uncle, the departmental aurthorities should not have denied the second telephone connection.

(3.) WE have heard Counsel for the parties.