POST MASTER Vs. REJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD at admission stage. This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum with a delay of 88 days along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against order dated 11.7.2008 passed by the District Forum,Sriganganagar in Complaint No. 348/06 by which the complaint of the complainant respondent No. 1 was allowed against respondent No. 2 which was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum in the manner that the telephone connection bearing No. 2793912 of the complainant respondent No. 1 which was made one way by respondent No. 2 be fully activated and further appellant as well as respondent No. 2 both were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,100 as costs of litigation and further Rs. 1,100 as fee for the Counsel, total Rs. 6,200 and this amount would be paid half half by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sriganganagar inter alia stating that he was having a telephone connection bearing No. 2793912 which was taken from respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 had issued a bill for Rs. 360 for the period 1.2.2006 to 31.3.2006 and the due date of payment was 28.4.06. It was further stated in the complaint that the amount of the bill was deposited in time through the services of the appellant but on the receipt the appellant had wrongly mentioned the telephone number as 2793716 instead of 2793912 and for that deficiency on account of non -payment of the bill, the respondent No. 2 had made one way telephone facility of the complainant and thus the complaint was filed by the complainant against both of them. A reply was filed by the appellant as well as by respondent No. 2 before the District Forum, Sriganganagar and after seeing the reply the District Forum, Sriganganagar had passed the impugned order dated 11.7.2008 inter alia holding that the appellant had wrongly mentioned the telephone number on the receipt of payment and for that deficiency this order was passed against the appellant as stated above. Aggrieved from the said order dated 11.7.08 passed by the District Forum, Sriganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(3.) IN our considered opinion, this appeal has to be dismissed because of the following reasons: (i) That the appeal is time barred as the same has been filed with a delay of 88 days though the impugned order was passed by the District Forum in presence of the Counsel for the appellant. (ii) No doubt application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant but taken into consideration the above circumstances, the reasons which have been assigned in that application do not appear to be sufficient and thus the appeal has become time barred and the application is to be rejected. (iii) Even on merits, if the case is examined, the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one as the payment of telephone bill was made by the complainant respondent No. 1 through the appellant and on receipt the appellant had mentioned the wrong telephone number and that is why later on the telephone of the complainant respondent was made one way by respondent No. 2. Hence, on merits deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is well established and for that deficiency a meagre amount has been ordered to be paid by the District Forum to the complainant respondent No. 1 and we see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.