GENERAL MANAGER BSNL Vs. PREMRAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the O. P. is the appellant. The complainant, who is the Auditor is admitted to have paid Rs.3,000/- for obtaining phone connection on 18.12.1996. But the complainant was not given any phone facility even on non-priority basis. It is contended by the appellant that the facility of installing phone to the complainant was completed on 12.10.2000. It is clear from the admitted fact that the O. P. has installed the phone only after filing the consumer dispute. The District Forum has accepted the case of the complainant and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the O. P. has filed this appeal.

(2.) It is contended by the appellant that when the Field Officer of the department went to the premises of the complainant, he was not available and that, therefore, the department could not instal the phone. The reason given by the Telephone Department was rejected by the District Forum. The contention of the O. P. that the Field Officer visited the complainant's address and that he could not find the complainant and that the Advice Note was returned as party not available are not supported by any materials. The report of the Field Officer has not been filed. The O. P. has not filed the affidavit of the Field Officer to substantiate their plea. It is highly improbable that the complainant who is an Auditor was not available in the given address for about 3 years till the date of filing the complaint. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly rejected the reason given by the O. P. for the delay in providing phone connection.

(3.) Coming to the quantum of compensation, we hold that the quantum of compensation cannot be said to be exorbitant. Though the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-, the District Forum has awarded only Rs.15,000/-. The inaction on the part of the Department and the delay in installing the new phone connection justified the award of compensation. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O. P. and as such the award of Rs.15,000/- as compensation cannot be reduced. There is inordinate delay on the part of the O. P. in providing the phone connection to the complainant/auditor. Therefore, we hold that there are no merits in the appeal.