GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. JANAK GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the General Manager, Telecom, Sector 17, Chandigarh against the order dated 1.3.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) vide which Complaint Case No.850 of 1998 was allowed. The District Forum-II awarded consolidated costs of Rs.7,500/- including the compensation for harassment caused to the complainant and directed the appellant (opposite party No.1) to instal telephone at the address given by the complainant in Sector 26, Chandigarh without compelling her to pay the arrears of the bills for the period the telephone remained illegally installed at Shed No.3126.

(2.) Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent, we deem it appropriate to notice the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal which are as under.

(3.) Mrs. Janak Gupta wife of Shri Om Parkash Gupta, r/o 6-A, Officers Colony, Mall Road, Karnal filed Complaint Case No.850 of 1998 against the appellant General Manager, Telecom, Sector 17, Chandigarh and impleaded respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Shri Vinod Gulati and Shri Vijay Gulati, both sons of Shri R. D. Gulati, Shed No.3126, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh (Ram Darbar ). The complainant alleged that she along with her sister Mrs. Sneh Mittal wife of Shri Madan Mohan Mittal was the owner of Industrial Shed bearing No.3126 aforesaid. A part of the said shed had been let out on rent to a firm constituted by Shri Vinod Gulati and Mrs. Neelam Mehta. Mrs. Janak Gupta, the complainant had applied for installation of a telephone in the year 1991 in General Category and deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- with the appellant General Manager, Telecom regarding it. The appellant sent a letter bearing No.34/genl/6308/6 dated 6.9.1995 to the complainant Mrs. Janak Gupta at the address of Shed No.3126 aforesaid and informed her about Advice Note bearing No. C-026886 dated nil having been issued to the S. D. O. , Phones-IV regarding the new telephone connection at the said shed. The Advice Note was received by the complainant whose husband had by that time been posted at Karnal. The complainant Mrs. Janak Gupta sent a letter dated 6.12.1995 to the appellant General Manager, Telecom intimating that the telephone be not installed at Shed No.3126, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and that the same be installed at Premises No.290, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh vide Annexure C-1. The complainant categorically averred in para 3 of the complaint that she did not reside at Chandigarh and in her absence, the officials of the appellant General Manager, Telecom placed the telephone apparatus at premises No.290, Industrial Area aforesaid and it was expected that the telephone would be made operative at that place. It was further averred that the telephone apparatus remained there for months together when one day the telephone apparatus was removed by the officials of the appellant without any reason and without any intimation to the complainant. She further alleged that thereafter there was no intimation to the complainant regarding the installation of the telephone from the appellant or from the other opposite party Nos.1 and 2 who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this appeal. The complainant came to Chandigarh on 18.1.1997 when she incidentally happened to see the new telephone directory issued by the appellant and came to know that Telephone No.654139 was installed at Shed No.3126, Industrial Area aforesaid against her name. The complainant paid a visit to Shed No.3126 the next day and met opposite party No.3 who was available there. The opposite party No.3 namely Shri Vijay Gulati, Shed No.3126, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh (Ram Darbar) told the complainant and her husband about his signing the papers in the installation of the telephone at Shed No.3126, Industrial Area aforesaid under the presumption that the telephone belonged to him. The telephone, it was alleged, was used by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and five bills dated 1.5.1996 for a sum of Rs.2,251/-, dated 1.7.1996 for a sum of Rs.500/-, dated 1.9.1996, 1.11.1996 and 1.1.1997 for identical sum of Rs.299/- each had been issued by the appellant. The total amount of these five bills was Rs.3,648/-. The complainant sent a letter dated 22.1.1997 to the appellant stating therein that the installation of the telephone at Shed No.3126, Industrial Area aforesaid was against her letter dated 8.12.1995 and a request was made that the said telephone be installed at Kothi No.123, Sector 21, Chandigarh. It was followed by letter dated 19/20.2.1997 addressed to the appellant. The copies of these letters have been annexed as Annexures C-2 and C-3. The complainant learnt from the opposite party No.3 on 19.1.1997 about the said telephone having been disconnected on 26.8.1996 on account of non-payment of the aforesaid five bills. The complainant wrote letter dated 23.5.1997, copy Annexure C-4 to the appellant/opposite party No.1 which was received by the appellant on 2.6.1997. It was alleged that the husband of the complainant had also written letters dated 5.8.1997, 15.12.1997 and 20.1.1998 to Shri Pritpal Singh, General Manager, Telecom who did not take any action on the same. The complainant made an averment in para 6 that the copies of these letters written by her husband would be produced if so needed. The complainant alleged that the telephone aforesaid had been installed at Shed No.3126, Industrial area, Phase-II, Chandigarh against her instructions and in collusion with the officials of the General Manager, Telecom and respondents/opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The complainant is not liable to make the payments outstanding against the said telephone as the same was in illegal possession of respondents/opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service of very high order on the part of the appellant/opposite party No.1 and the complainant has entitled to reinstallation of the telephone without any extra charge, non-payment of the amount of bills in question and was also liable to be compensated. Consequently the complainant prayed that a direction be issued to the appellant/opposite party No.1 not to charge the amount of the bills from her and if it so desired, it may be charged from respondent Nos.2 and 3 or their company referred to above. She has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the appellant/opposite party No.1 to instal the telephone at Kothi No.123, Sector 21, Chandigarh without demanding any extra charges for installation, rental or on any other count. She claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to her and also prayed for the award of the costs of litigation.