Y S VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Sh. Y. S. Verma R/o L-46a, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi against the General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and others.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.8,000/- with the opposite party for getting a new telephone connection under OYT Scheme. That due to the negligence of the opposite party OYT telephone was not given to the complainant whereas OYT telephone connections were cleared for all those consumers who had booked the OYT telephone in the month of August 1989. The complainant had booked the same in the month of August, 1988 and that due to the negligence and mala fide acts of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered losses upto Rs.2,20,000/- on account of business dislocation, mental injury, expenses paid for temporary connection etc. In the prayer, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation for the negligent act of the respondents. In their reply the respondents have denied the allegations being misconcieved and unsubstantiated. They however, admitted that the complainant did apply for OYT telephone on 30.8.88 at New Delhi for his address at A-1/92, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi and that the complainant had subsequently requested for the change of address at L-46a, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi vide his letter dated 10.9.89. His signatures affixed on the letter for change of address however, did not tally with the one's submitted at the time of original booking and as such the respondents had asked the complainant vide their letter dated 29.12.89 to furnish the specimen signatures duly attested. The complain- ant did not respond for quite sometime and ultimately he visited the office of the respondent personally on 19.4.90 and his request for the change of address was acceded to immediately and orders for the new connections were issued on the same day itself. The complainant's telephone was connected within 10 days and he was provided with telephone No.6446091 which he was enjoying on his temporary connection. Thus there was no delay on the part of the respondent and instead they had acted with utmost promptitude and that they cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the complainant himself for his failure to submit the attested specimen signatures.

(3.) The above version of the respondents was supported by an affidavit submitted by one Sh. P. C. Jain, Asstt. General Manager working with the respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited