TELECOM DISTT OFFICE Vs. SIKHA BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is an appeal arising out of the judgment and orders dated 7.8.2000 passed by the Consumer Forum of Darjeeling District at Circuit Bench at Siliguri in Consumer Case No.20/s/1999. By this order the Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, Smt. Sikha Bhowmick (the present respondent) on contest against the O. P. , General Manager, Telecom District Office and another and directed the O. P. to provide telephone connection in the new address given by the complainant and to refund the minimum call charges received by the O. P.-1 to the complainant by way of adjustment. The Forum also awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the complainant by way of compensation and also saddled the O. P. with a cost of Rs.300/-. The Forum gave 30 days time to the O. Ps. to comply with the order.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order the O. Ps. have preferred this appeal challenging that order as erroneous, improper and unsustainable.

(3.) The case of the complainant was that she was granted permission to run a telephone booth for I. S. D. , S. T. D. and P. C. O. at New Cinema Road, Siliguri and a telephone being No. SLG 430881 was installed at her place of business on that New Cinema Road for a minimum charge of Rs.1,680/- per month. Later, she applied for shifting of the telephone at the premises of J. P. Enterprises at 356/289, Nehru Road. The further allegation of the complainant was that the telecom department in spite of having received the said minimum charges of Rs.1,680/- per month was not giving connection to the telephone thereby causing immense financial loss to her. She claimed immediate connection of the telephone at her new address as given above. Under such circumstances she filed the complaint before the Forum claiming the said relief as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.65,200/- up to February 1999 and a further compensation @ Rs.5,380/- per month till connection is given to the telephone. The O. P. telecom department contested the complaint by filing a written objection denying the material allegations and averring that on their inspection they came to know that the complainant was trying to sell the business to one J. P. Enterprises and for that purpose she was seeking shifting of the place of business. The further contention of the O. P. was that the complainant was not a consumer at all within the meaning and definition given under the Consumer Protection Act.