DISTRICT MANAGER TELEPHONES Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 20.5.1997 ordered that a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable by the appellants on account of undue delay in providing the telephone connection to Shri Ashok Kumar, complainant. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) Ashok Kumar, a resident of Sector 35d Chandigarh applied for a telephone connection on 25.4.1985, There was a general notice to the public that the telephones booked till April, 1985 have been installed. The connection of the complainant matured in January, 1992, yet in reality it was released in October, 1992. On behalf of the appellant the fact that the telephone connection was actually provided on 3.10.1992 has not been denied. Here during the course of arguments our attention has been drawn to Annexure C-6 which is at the bottom of Annexure C-5 and consists of a short note dated 8.9.1992 as if the premises in question were found closed on 8.9.1992. The author of this brief note has neither been named in the reply nor any affidavit has been placed on the record to substantiate the plea that any employee of the appellant went to the premises of the respondent and the premises were found closed. The issuance of sanction on 26.3.1992 and installation of telephone after several months in October 1992 establishes deficiency on the part of the appellants.

(3.) Our attention has been drawn to R. N. Gupta V/s. Union of India and Others,1995 3 CPJ 328, where the claim of Rs.11,20,000/- which was put forward by an applicant in respect of telephone was disallowed. In the aforesaid case the facts were different inasmuch as it was verified from the Ministry of Communication that no sanction in favour of Shri R. N. Gupta was at all issued by the Department. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to Anuvibhagiya Adhikari, Telephones V/s. Jageshwar Prasad Mishra,1995 2 CPJ 341, but the aforesaid case related to alleged defect in the meter and thus the facts were altogether different. The aforesaid two authorities, therefore, cannot be helpful to the appellants.