TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT Vs. GANAPATHY ACHARIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant approached the lower Forum with the complaint that he has deposited the necessary amount for a telephone connection. But he has not been granted the connection though she has deposited the amount as early as on 26.5.1992 and the persons who have applied subsequent to the complainant and lower in seniority list have been granted connection. Thus there is deficiency in service.

(2.) THE opposite parties admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - and applied for telephone connection. According to them, Vadapathy village is not situated within 3 kms from the Sirupakkam Telephone Exchange and on the other hand it is 6.5 kms away and if the telephone connection has to be given, it has to cover a long distance and as the complainant s application will block other beneficiaries where there is no involvement of heavy stores, the field authorities obtained necessary approval for providing connections to others in the waiting list. Therefore, basing upon the distance, the persons who were not lower in the seniority list were granted connection. The complainant does not dispute the fact that the complainant s place of business in which telephone connection was requested for is situated at place more than 5 kms from Sirupakkam Telephone Exchange. Therefore, the Department contended that the investment in such cases will be heavy and it requires considerable length of wires and stores to effect connection and the rules of the Department do not permit such heavy investment. Further, according to them, maintenance of long distance lines is expensive.

(3.) THE lower Forum has observed that when the Department has provided connections to the Village Panchyat then there cannot be objection of difficulty in extending such service to the complainant. But as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the provision of telephone connection to Village Panchayat is under a different category . They are providing it with a view to bring the rural areas within the reachable distance and it is done as a part of the Government policy to benefit the population of the village and it is a social obligation that is carried out by the Government. Therefore, the ideology or analogy cannot be extended to a person who is seeking telephone connection for his business purposes. We have to accept this contention of the opposite parties. Granting of telephone connection to the Village Panchayat cannot be equated to the connection given to individuals. The connections to the Village Panchayat are granted under a scheme to benefit the public in the village and bring all the villages in the country clubbed. Private and individual connections involving long lines cannot be equated with the Panchayat connection and the policy cannot be applied to individual applicants. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the granting of Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation for deficiency in service cannot be maintained. The lower Forum ought to have taken into consideration the reasons that the complainant s place is far away more than 5 kms. It is not the complainant s case that the place where he was seeking connection was less than 5 kms. Therefore, considering the matter and in the circumstances, we feel that while we maintain the order of the lower Forum with regard to the direction of granting connection, we have to set aside the order for payment of compensation.