TELECOMMUNICATION B S N L Vs. SANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties in C.O.P. No. 101/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin, are the appellants. The respondent filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not shifting her telephone from her residence to her new premises within a reasonable time. Her case was that she applied for shifting of the telephone on 9.6.1998. In spite of her repeated reminders and demands, the shifting was wilfully delayed by the opposite parties with ulterior motive. It was finally shifted only on 5.12.1998 after 6 months. Because of this, the complainant, a medical practitioner was put to loss and a lot of inconvenience. She estimated her loss in a sum of Rs. 400 per day. She sent a notice to the opposite party on 1.6.2000. A reply was received on 30.6.2000 stating that the shift was ordered on 23.6.1998 itself but the building was not completed. The building was completed and occupied during August 1998. It was assessed to Panchayat Tax from 98 -99. It received EB service connection on 12.10.1998. Even otherwise, a completed building was not the requirement for providing a telephone connection. One K.P. Parameswaran who had a temporary shed and which was not even assigned door number had been given a telephone connection. The said property was adjacent to the complainants house. The shifting was wantonly delayed in view of some legal proceedings between the complainants family and the department. There was deficiency in service.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party filed a counter and the same was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3. The shift was effected as quickly as possible subject to technical feasibility. The opposite parties department field officers called on the address for installation of lines to carry out the shift and found that the premises where the telephone was to be installed on shift was still under construction stage. It was also not occupied. The field officers were requested by the complainant to wait for some time. They visited the premises every now and then till the first week of September, 1998. So, they returned the pending advice note during September 1998. On 8.10.1998, the complainants father called on the opposite parties in person and informed that the construction of the building was over and requested to arrange for the shift. When again the department field officers called on the premises, they found that the construction was still going on and that the house was not taken for occupation. The delay was entirely due to the complainant. There could have been no inconvenience or loss to the complainant. Suitable reply had been given to the notice. It was denied that the building was occupied in August 1998. The electricity connection was received only on 12.10.1998. The doctor would not occupy a building without electricity.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the fault was entirely that of the complainant. She had asked for shifting to an incomplete building and as soon as the building was completed shift was arranged. It is to be noted that for installation or for shifting a telephone, it is not necessary that a building should be complete. Possibly, while the construction was going on, the use of a telephone could have been very necessary. The materials for building could be ordered through telephone and other matters could be attended to through telephone even if the construction was incomplete. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for shifting on 9.6.1998. Shift was given only on