UNION OF INDIA Vs. MODI INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated December 10, 1996 directing the Telephone Department to release the telephone connection to the complainant on or before January 31,1997 and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. The complainants are M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala and its proprietor Shri Jagdish Raj Modi. On deposit of Rs.800/- on December 31, 1976, the complainant applied for a new telephone connection. After waiting for number of years without getting the telephone connection and on coming to know that the Telephone Department had issued telephone connections to others who had applied later on, the complainant approached the District Forum in April, 1996 with the complaint for a direction to the Telephone Department for releasing the telephone connection and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and pay interest on the amount of Rs.800/- @ 18% p. a. from December 24, 1996 till installation of the telephone. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1,100/- were also claimed.

(2.) The Telephone Department contested the complaint while submitting its version. The facts as alleged in the complaint that the complainant had applied for telephone connection on deposit of Rs.800/- were admitted. It was further stated that the matter was investigated and premises of M/s. Modi Industries, Barnala were not located. When the matter was put up in the Lok Adalat, the complainant was asked to submit copy of the Partnership Deed, but the same was not done. Hence, there was no deficiency in rendering service; the complaint was alleged to be barred by time; the complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands; the complaint was false and frivolous, filed to harass the officials of the Department. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. An application was filed by the complainant calling upon the Telephone Department to produce his original Application for the grant of telephone connection, original Demand Notice calling upon the complainant to deposit Rs.800/- and copies of the Legal Notices issued by the complainant to the Department dated May 26,1994 and March 15,1996. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the Department stating that there was no need for production of such documents for just decision of the case and the documents demanded were baseless. The District Forum found deficiency in rendering service in not granting the telephone connection to the complainant when his turn came and thus the necessary directions were given as referred to above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has argued that the stale claim was not required to be entertained by the District Forum. The alleged payment was made as back as in December, 1976 and thereafter the complainant did not approach the Telephone Department for installation of the telephone connection. Thus, he was not interested in getting the telephone and the complaint was barred by time. Reference has been made to the decision of the National Commission in Satish Chandra Jha V/s. Bihar State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd. and Anr.,1995 3 CPJ 66 ; Asian Trading Company V/s. Executive Engineer, P. H. E. D. Drilling and Hand Pump Division,1995 2 CPJ 250 and Jit Singh V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.,1995 2 CPJ 17 (Punj. ). The ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to the case in hand. The cause of action for filing the complaint in the present case is continuous till the prayer for installation of the telephone is rejected, which would be finally giving cause of action. No such decision ever was taken by the Telephone Department rejecting the application for any reason that it could be said that cause of action accrued thereon and the question of limitation for filing the present complaint could be considered. The fact cannot loss sight of that in 1976 when the complainant applied for telephone connection, ordinarily turn for installation of telephone would take about 8 years or a decade. It was not expected of the complainant till he receives intimation of coming up his turn to approach the Telephone Department. When the filing of the application and deposit of the requisite amount of Rs.800/- is not denied by the Telephone Department, it was the Telephone Department who was to act thereon. Non-action on their part in this respect will not shift the blame on the complainant that he had not approached the Telephone Department earlier.