GENERAL MANAGER HYDERABAD TELECOM Vs. A G CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the opposite parties in CD. No.655 of 1994 questioning the order of the Hyderabad District Forum-II therein dated 2.8.1999. The complainant in the CD. is respondent in the appeal.

(2.) At this outset we have to note that the complaint was presented on 31.3.1994 by the complainant aggrieved that his application for shifting his telephone bearing No.553514 from Malakpet to Amberpet made on 30.6.1993 was not attended to by the appellants. After repeated approaches, in August, 1993 he was confronted by the requirement of producing the receipts showing that he paid all the bills due to the Telephone Department in respect of his telephone. It is not as if the appellants did not have ample time from 30th June, 1993 to August, 1993 to verify whether the complainant was in arrears. On the other hand it was stated in the counter affidavit dated 17.9.1998 of Sri K. Sudhakar filed before the District Forum as follows, while admitting that the complainant applied for a shift on 30.6.1993: "the application was not processed as there are some dues to be paid by the complainant. When the complainant approached the department in August, 1993 he was informed that there were dues of Rs.1,128/-and if the payment particulars were produced the application for shift would be processed. "

(3.) It is significant that it was stated in the counter affidavit that orally the complainant was informed when he approached "the Department in August, 1993" that there were dues of Rs.1,128/-. It is not stated by Sri K. Sudhakar how he, working in September, 1998 in the Office of Principal General Manager at Hyderabad, came to know about that oral instruction made in August, 1993. He did not state who gave that oral instruction. No material whatsoever was filed to establish that the complainant approached "the Department" in August, 1993 and that he was so informed. It is obvious that the said plea that the complainant approached the department in August, 1993 and that he was informed of arrears orally, was an after-thought and a concoction. Secondly, the assertion by the appellants that there were dues of Rs.1,128/- when the complainant applied for shift can only be on the basis that they verified. No material was there to establish that any such verification was made. If really the complainant was in arrears, they could have asked him to produce no due certificate immediately on receiving the application on 30.6.1993. The learned Counsel for the appellants before us accepts that the complainant was not in arrears. It was not the case of the appellants that any disconnection notice was issued to the complainant. No material whatsoever was placed before the District Forum to establish that the complainant was in arrears at the relevant time. Under the circumstances their requiring the complainant orally in August, 1993 to produce receipts evidencing payment of the bills was only a pretext to explain away the delay in shifting of the telephone. So also the allegation that the complainant produced the receipt in December, 1993. The appellants put forward the plea that 'cable pairs' were not available thereafter and so many other reasons; and even after the complainant approached the District Forum in March, 1994 the shifting of the telephone was not effected till 6.5.1994. Thus the appellants took ten months for shifting the telephone after the complainant made his application on 30.6.1993. The inaction from June, 1993 to August, 1993 has not been explained by the appellants.