KUSUM PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Smt. Kusum Pandey, wife of late Dr. S. C. Pandey, Sudhanshu Pandey, Dr. Archana Misra, Smt. Subha Dwivedi and Smt. Divya Chaturvedi. Briefly stated the allegations contained in the complaint are as follows.

(2.) The complainant No.1 Smt. Kusum Pandey, is the mother of complainant Nos.2 to 5 and they are surviving legal heirs of late Dr. S. C. Pandey who died on 18.9.1996 at Ashiana Colony, Lucknow. Husband of complainant No.1 S. C. Pandey was a retired Chief Medical Superintendent and a Government pensioner drawing total pension of Rs.5,600/- per month. He along with complainant No.1 had been living in Ashiana Colony, Lucknow and the rest members of the family were living separately at their respective place of posting. After his retirement the husband of the complainant No.1 was doing his professional work and was a man of status. He was subscriber and user of telephone service. Being a heart patient and all his children being out of town, S. C. Pandey, husband of the complainant No.1 got a telephone installed at his house at K-932, Ashiana Colony, Lucknow on 1st June, 1993. He was prompt in regularly paying the telephone bills and there was no outstanding payment against the telephone bills. On 10.9.1993 his telephone No.257062 went out of order. A complaint was made to Transport Nagar Telephone Exchange on the same day but the fault was not rectified. A letter was sent to S. D. O. Telephone on 12.9.1993 and again on 23.9.1993 requesting the SDO (Telephones), Alambagh to attend the complaint but to no effect. Further a letter dated 28.9.1993 to the SDO Telephones, Alambagh was written requesting for immediate steps but telephone was put to order only on 23.10.1993. The telephone again became dead on 11.11.1993 and a complaint was made to the concerned Telephone Exchange on the same day. A letter was written to the Telephone Department on 17.11.1993 by Dr. S. C. Pandey, husband of the complainant No.1 and when the telephone was not corrected, a complaint was lodged again on 24.11.1993 to the D. G. M. (Telephones ). In the complaint it was made clear that the lineman concerned was knowingly committing the mischief by demanding Rs.100/-. Another letter dated 29.11.1993 was sent to DGM (Telephones) and after making several efforts the telephone was set right. The Department of Telecommunication had to give rebate for the period 22.2.1993 to 15.10.1993 because of the fact that the telephone in question was not in working order during that period.

(3.) Again on 9.7.1994 the telephone of the petitioner went out of order and a complaint was made by Dr. Pandey to the Telephone Exchange. Letters were also sent on 10.7.1994 and 12.7.1994 but the telephone was not corrected. In his letters the husband of the complainant No.1 had been insisting that he was a heart patient and was living alone with his wife and was in dire need of medical assistance and contact with his sons who are posted outside the State. No heed was paid on these letters. Letters were again written to the D. G. M. Telephones, on 21.7.1994, 30.7.1994 and 5.8.1994. The telephone again went out of order on 9.1.1996 and on the same day a complaint was lodged. When the telephone was not set to order the D. G. M. (Telephones) was again approached by letters dated 17.1.1996, 25.1.1996 and several complaints were made with the Telephone Exchange. After some time the telephone gave proper services. However, in the last week of May, 1996 the telephone again developed defects which were not removed for a considerable period. Letters were written on 6.6.1996, 12.6.1996, 30.6.1996, 3.7.1996, 14.7.1996, 1.8.1996, 13.8.1996 in addition to the complaint lodged with the Telephone Exchange but to no avail and the defects in the telephone were not removed till 15.8.1996 but again after a week from 24.8.1996 the said telephone became dead. Complaint was lodged by Dr. Pandey with the Transport Nagar Telephone Exchange and complaints were also made to D. G. M. (Telephones) on 26.8.1996, 29.8.1996 but to no effect. The husband of the complainant No.1 was regularly approaching and writing to different offices of the Telephone Department for having smooth working of his telephone as a result of which he was under constant mental stress. Telephone Department employees were annoyed with Dr. Pandey on not paying the money and the telephone was kept deliberately defective. He even approached the Minister for Telecommunication by making a complaint about the working of his telephone but the said telephone was not set right. Again letters were sent to D. G. M. Telephone and other Authorities of the Telecommunication Department on 5.9.1996, 11.9.1996, 14.9.1996 and 17.9.1996 but the telephone was lying dead. The opposite parties did not act and failed to discharge their duties in providing telephone service to Dr. S. C. Pandey from June, 1996 till his death on 18.9.1996. The husband of the complainant No.1 died without medical aid due to lack of communication on telephone which was badly needed.