BSNL Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REHABILITATION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this appeal order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred to as Forum) has been challenged. The Forum in terms of the impugned order has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the respondent within one month as well as to refund the rental charges paid for the period with effect from May, 2003 till the date it was activated. The respondent in this case is the Executive Director of "J&K State Council for Rehabilitation of Widows, Orphans, Handicapped and Old Age Persons (Victims of Militancy)" (hereinafter to be referred to as Council). The Council is a subscriber of telephone No. 2480835 and it was installed at the residence of its Director. The said Director in May 2003 had requested the appellant for shifting of the said telephone from the residence of his predecessor who was residing in Kursu Rajbagh to his own residence situated in the same locality in house No. 95. Prior to the shifting of the telephone connection, request had been made to keep the telephone apparatus in safe custody. The telephone was shifted in the month of May 2003, but was not activated for considerable time. The complainant approached the appellant for its activation, but it was activated after filing of the complaint in the Forum on a direction issued. Rather, the bills for the payment of rent for the period May -June, 2003 and July -August, 2003 were demanded. The complainant had filed the complaint for the harassment caused to him and claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 25,000 as litigation charges.

(2.) THE Forum during the trial of the complaint, the Forum appointed Commissioner Mr. Mumtaz Kapta, Advocate who verified the fact that telephone was fully activated on the direction of the Forum and till then only incoming calls were being received. On the appraisal of the evidence, the learned Forum has held that, " It is unfortunate that a Head of very sensitive department has to repeatedly make the request to the concerned agencies for performing their duties for which they are being paid. The height of the things is that the department concerned issued the bills to the department for the period when the telephone connection although shifted was not functioning at all. The concerned authorities were not moved even to look into matter as to why the telephone connection shifted to the residence of the complainant was not functioning. It seems that as if the department concerned were in a sleep, the calls of the complainant went un -heard. What can be the fate of a poor subscriber when the cries of Head of a very sensitive department were not heard by the persons who are at helm of affairs. The behaviour and the attitude of the OP in a matter like this is highly deplorable". It has been held that appellant had been negligent and deficient in service by not activating the telephone facility to the respondent who had been put to great agony and harassment. While accepting the complaint the above said reliefs were granted, and the order has been challenged in appeal.

(3.) IN the memo of appeal it has been pleaded that order has been passed in hot haste without appreciating the evidence and there was no deficiency in service. That the order was passed in derogation to Section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act. That respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of J&K Consumer Protection Act. From the morning till late hours of the day, the Commission has waited for the appearance of the Counsel of the appellant and even his agent was directed to cause his appearance, but he has failed to enter appearance. The appeal has been pending here for the last about four years and there can be no justification to prolong its adjudication.