TELECOM DISTRICT Vs. P KARUPPANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that in spite of the complainant depositing the necessary fees, he has not been given the telephone connection by the opposite parties and thus there has been deficiency in service, the complaint was laid before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruchirappalli.

(2.) The District Forum, Trichy accepted the case of the complainant and held that there was deficiency in service but, however, as the telephone connection was given in the meanwhile when the proceedings were going on, it directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The only point to be decided is whether the Department can be held liable to pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. In such matters when grievance of this nature is put forward, one has to take into account certain practical difficulties as well. The Telephone Department cannot just like that effect connections. They have to depend upon the coordination of the other Departments such as Highways, Panchayat Unions, TWAD Board, E. B. , etc. Moreover, in this case on hand, we find that an objection was raised to the taking of overhead line by a neighbour of the complainant. Whether the said neighbour was within his right in raising such an objection or not, the fact that is made out from the document produced by the opposite parties is that a complaint was made by one Ramasamy objecting to the taking of the overhead telephonic wires through his property. Therefore, one has to view this matter from a broad perspective and cannot jump to conclusion that every delay is fatal or must be construed as a deficiency of service. The practical difficulties of the Department in implementing the scheme cannot be ignored. Therefore, mere delay cannot be termed as a deficiency of service. When the coordination of other departments, the allotment of funds for the scheme are all factors to be taken into consideration and when there is an objecting neighbour, it cannot be stated that there was any unjustified delay on the part of the opposite parties in effecting connections. Therefore, to construe the delay in this matter as amounting to deficiency in service, in our opinion, is not justified. There is, of course, some delay but the delay has been properly accounted for and explained by Department. Such a thing as granting connection cannot be done overnight or at the flick up fingers of the parties, especially in a democratic set up where we are. When there are hiccups in the hierarchies and hedging and when there are so many extraneous factors and circumstances to be taken into account and in the context of present day society and how the governmental activities are carried on and done, we are of the view that, in the broad canvass of above factors if we view in the matter, we can never decide or conclude that there has been any unreasonable or unjustifiable delay in the matter of effecting telephone connection. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that award of Rs.5,000/- as compensation is not appropriate in the peculiar circumstances. Hence, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the lower Forum in so far as they directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- + a cost of Rs.1,000/-.