DISTRICT ENGINEER TELECOM Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The facts leading to this petition are that the present respondent Shri Sunil Kumar was earlier having telephone Connection No. 2537. In May, 1982 he applied for disconnection of STD facility which his telephone was having. He deposited Rs. 50/- towards disconnection fee on 25th May, 1982. However, STD facility from his telephone was not barred. According to the allegation contained in the complaint filed by him sometimes he received excessive bills and then on his complaint the bill again started coming to normal for couple of months and then again the bills were excessive. In June, 1990 his telephone number was changed to 2161 from 2537 without any intimation to him. Due to sudden change in the telephone number he could not get some important calls for which he suffered financially as he is a business man and is propietor of "Swadeshi Pharmacy". According to the complainant the Department had been negligent in the rendering of service.

(2.) THE Department contested the complaint. It was admitted that the STD facility of the Complainant could not be barred till June, 1990 and when it was done the telephone number was changed from STD group to non-STD group and new non-STD number was allotted to the complainant.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by that order the District Engineer, Telecom filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. The Commission held that after the Complainant had applied for disconnection of STD facility from his telephone he was making trunk calls under the belief that his telephone had no STD facility. It was further held that the department took about 3 years to render service which could have been done immediately after the request was made and that it was common knowledge that disconnection of STD facility takes little time if the concerned telephone exchange desires to do so. It was therefore, held that there was deficiency in the rendering of service by the Telecommunication Department. It was further held that the abrupt changing of the telephone number of the complainant without any reference to him was also arbitrary on the part of the department and therefore, sufferings of the complainant on account of deficiency in the said service also could not be denied and this deficiency cannot but be said to be on account of the negligence of the Telecommunication Department as no reason was given for the abrupt change in the telephone number. Accordingly, it was held that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum could not be said to be excessive. Considering all the facts, the State Commission did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the District Forum and consequently dismissed the appeal. Not being satisfied with that order, the Department has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.