DIRECTOR TELECOM SOUTH UDAIPUR Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Director, Telecom (South) Udaipur and Telecommunication District Engineer, Panchvati, Udaipur against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 7.10.92 whereby the District Forum directed the opposite parties-appellants to sanction new telephone connection to the complainant from Udaipur Telephone Exchange within one month and further to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. The complainant-respondent was duly served by registered post and he sent a written reply to the appeal. On 8.5.95 Sh. Mathuresh Nagda, sister's son of the respondent appeared, but the respondent did not appear in-person. We heard arguments in the appeal and perused the record.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the complainant respondent had on 17.7.82 made an application for telephone connection under general category to District Engineer, Telecommunication Udaipur and he was kept in waiting list and serial number in that list 1870 (A) was assigned to him. The complainant is resident of Village Seesarama, Tehsil Girwa, Distt. Udaipur. The complainant wanted the telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. According to the complainant, Village Seesarama, where the complainant had his residential house, was within a radius of 5 kms. from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. It was pleaded by the complainant that the Telecommunication Department had sanctioned telephone connection to persons who were after him in the waiting list, but not to the complainant. The complainant wanted to have STD facility. However, the Telecommunication Department told to the complainant that his village came within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange. According to the complainant, his village was contiguous to the Municipal limits of Udaipur city and was at a distance of about 5 kms. from the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange. The complainant further pleaded that in Seesarama Village itself telephone No.27364 had been sanctioned by the Telecommunication Department from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. On the basis of these averments, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur. The version of the opposite party was that Village Seesarama was within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange and the complainant had not made any application for sanction of telephone from Nai Telephone Exchange.

(3.) The District Forum held that the complainant had made an application for telephone connection in the year 1982. Nai Telephone Exchange was established in the year 1986. The District Forum further held that the boundary of Nai Telephone Exchange was not less than the distance of the village of the complainant from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. The complainant wanted STD facility, which was not available in Nai Telephone Exchange. The District Forum held that the complainant could not be compelled to take telephone from Nai Telephone Exchange. On the basis of these findings the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the relief mentioned above.