T.D.M. Vs. SATBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Telephone Department against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short 'the District Forum') dated 26.4.2001 by which the complaint of the complainant was accepted by observing as under: "16. On the analysis presented above, it may be unhesitatingly concluded that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not actually providing telephone connection to the complainant within a reasonable time after 16.1.2000 when From -D was issued directing the Incharge of Galhri Exchange to provide new telephone connection with STD facility to the complainant. The delay of more than 11 months in providing the telephone connection to the complainant in this age of I.T. and Internet revolution is inexcusable, rather criminal. It would be only a cold comfort for the opposite party that it has provided telephone connection to the complainant on 20.12.2000 long after the present complaint had been lodged. 17. The wife of the complainant is reigning Sarpanch of village Ganja. Therefore, the need of a telephone in the house of the complainant and his spouse cannot be over -emphased. He has pleaded that he has suffered harassment and felt cut -off from society for want of a telephone connection and also suffered pecuniary loss to the extent of about Rs. 6,000 or Rs. 7,000. Though there is no independent evidence relating to pecuniary loss, yet in the facts and circumstances of this case, mental and physical harassment to him and his feeling cut -off from the society may be presumed. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case the ends of justice would be satisfied by directing the opposite party to pay to complainant Rs. 500 as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 200 as expenses of litigation. Order accordingly. The liability of the opposite party shall be joint, several and co -extensive. This order be complied with within one month from the date on which its copy is received by the opposite party."

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant had applied for telephone connection in January, 1997 and on issuance of demand notice, Rs. 1,000 was deposited with opposite party No. 2 as security. It was stated that the telephone connection was not released but the order for release of telephone connection was issued before 7 -8 months to the filing of this complaint. It was stated that her wife was sitting Sarpanch of village Ganja (at that time) and due to this he has a dire need of telephone and in the absence his family was socially cut off. Complainant has stated that he had suffered loss of Rs. 5,000 to 6,000, caused mental harassment and had filed the complaint for directing the opposite parties to release telephone connection and also compensation.

(3.) ON notice, opposite parties filed their written statement. The installation of telephone connection on 20.12.2000 in the premises of the complainant was admitted. It was also admitted that complainant applied for telephone connection in the month of January 1997 and also admitted the deposit of Rs. 1,000 as security. It was denied that on visit, complainant was put off on one pretext or the other. It was not specifically denied that formal order of telephone connection had been passed before 7 -8 months of lodging the complaint. It was stated that telephone connection was installed on 20.12.2000 after making the area feasible and completing all the formalities i.e. laying of cable line and availability of pairs. The fact of harassment and pecuniary loss was denied and stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.