RAM KHANNA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Telecom District Engineer, Barmer and Sub Divisional Officer, Telecom. Department, Jaisalmer against the order of the District Forum, Jaisalmer dated 7.10.92 whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite parties-appellants to refund the amount of Rs.1,200/- realised from the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum giving liberty to the appellants to adjust the said amount against future telephone bills.

(2.) Complainant Shri Kishan Golkiya had made an application on 14.4.87 (Annexure A) for a telephone connection in his house located in Pansari Bazar, Jaisalmer. The opposite parties released a telephone connection to the complainant on 24.3.89. The case of the complainant was that when the staff of the Telephone Department installed the telephone connection, they, of their own accord, left 10 meter long drop wire and did not make permanent fitting. When the complainant asked them to make permanent fitting, they went away saying that they were in hurry and will do the same later on. On 25.9.89/6.12.89 the Sub Divisional Officer, Telcom Department, Jaisalmer sent a letter to the complainant that the latter had shifted his telephone No.2651 from the room in the first floor of his house to the shop in the ground floor unauthorisedly. The complainant sent his clarification on 11.12.89 denying the alleged shifting and stating that the staff of the Telephone Department had themselves left 10 meter long drop wire and did not make permanent fitting of the telephone connection at the place pointed out by the complainant. Despite that the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,200/-as shifting charges under threat of disconnection. The complainant was thus compelled wrongly to deposit the amount of Rs.1,200/- of which he claimed the refund by filing complaint before the District Forum, Jaisalmer on 4.10.91.

(3.) The version of the opposite party was that the complainant had applied for new telephone connection for his residence vide application (Annexure A) and affidavit Annexure B. Telephone No.2651 was installed on 24.3.89 at the residence of the complainant in the room situated on the first floor as per his application. On 22.5.89 line staff Shri Dhanraj Sharma, L. M. P. and Shri Achal Singh, L. M. P. noticed that the telephone has been shifted by the complainant of his own accord out of the room to be used in the shop in ground floor. The J. T. O. Phones Shri S. S. Choudhary found on inspection that the telephone had been unauthorisedly shifted by the complainant. Again the complainant shifted the telephone to its original place in the room in first floor as was found by Shri B. L. Gupta, J. T. O. Jaisalmer. As regards the fittings, it was pleaded that permanent fitting would be done on availability of men and material. It was not binding that after permanent fitting only, new telephone is to be installed. The Telecom Department simply charged Rs.1,200/- to regularise the unauthorised shifting of the telephone from the upper room of the residence to the ground floor in the shop and no harassment was caused to the complainant.