HARI GOPAL GARG Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has made an application under Sec.12b of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief), charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices. The grievance of the applicant is that he booked a telephone for installation at his residence No.1155, Sector-8, Chandigarh, under general category and also deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- as security and his application was registered as "no. CH/gen/r/11,537-A dated 2.6.1982". It has been further complained by him that subsequently, he changed his address and informed the respondent that the telephone be installed at his new residence 150, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh and accordingly, he was allotted new Registration No. S-34/gen/r/355. He again shifted his residence to House No.2853, Sector-37, Chandigarh and informed the respondent accordingly, and on 26.9.1994, he was allotted new Registration No. S-17/gen/r/1466-A. It has been further mentioned by him that although Advice Note No. A-069448 dated 29.9.1994 for installation of the telephone at his House No.2823, Sector-37, Chandigarh was issued by the respondent, the telephone was not installed and his security deposit was also not refunded to him, in spite of his repeated requests, both verbal and in writing. The applicant has asked for not only refund of the security deposit, with interest @ 20% per annum, for 16 years, that the deposit remained with the respondent, but has also asked for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) The respondent in its reply has raised the question of maintainability of the present proceeding, on the ground that the respondent is a part and parcel of the Department of Telecommunication of the Government of India and is providing telecommunication services under the Indian Telegraph Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. It has also been stated in the reply that on 23.1.1992, orders were issued for installation of telephone but the applicant shifted his residence to House No.628, Sector-6, Panchkula and as at that point of time, intercity transfer of booking was not permissible, his request could not be acceded to, and the telephone connection could not be provided to him. However, he was advised to seek refund of the security deposit on furnishing the original paid demand note, original post office receipt and pre-receipt duly stamped but the applicant did not comply with the aforesaid conditions and instead, continued to insist on installation of telephone at Panchkula vide his letter dated 14.9.1993. It has been also mentioned in the reply, that order for installation of telephone at his residence, House No.2823, Sector-37, Chandigarh was issued but the telephone connection could not be provided, because in the meantime, he had shifted his residence, as per the report of the field staff. It has been further submitted by the respondent in the reply, that the applicant's request for refund of the security deposit with interest, can be considered even now, and processed in accordance with the Rules, as already intimated to him, vide letter dated 26.8.1993.

(3.) On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents are or have been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices (3) Relief, if any.