CALCUTTA TELEPHONE Vs. SAILENDRA NATH CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the Calcutta Telephones an order awarding compensation to a subscriber whose prayer for restoration of a telephone after the expiry of the period of safe custody was delayed by about 11 months. The respondent one Sailendra Nath Chakravarty requested the Telephone Deptt. to keep his telephone in safe custody as he was posted outside Calcutta on official assignment. He wanted his telephone to be in safe custody from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. There was no response from the Telephone Authority and on personal contact he was advised on 8.2.1994 to make a fresh application in the prescribed form. This was done but no corresponding action was taken for disconnection of the telephone. At last work order was issued on 5.5.1994 for disconnecting the telephone. After the expiry of the safe custody period the subscriber prayed for reconnection and at last necessary work order was issued on 28.6.1995 for reconnection of the telephone. This was not done and the subscriber filed a complaint demanding restoration of the telephone and the adjustment of the rental charges against the bills already paid.

(2.) On the last date of hearing the complaint case before the District Forum the complainant submitted that the Telephone Authorities had restored the telephone connection on 19.12.1995 and had sanctioned a refund of Rs.3.623/-.

(3.) The District Forum held that the complainant's prayer for restoration of telephone and adjustment of rental charges were redressed, but nevertheless it awarded a compensation of Rs.3.000/at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for the unnecessary delay in restoring the telephone. It is this awarding of compensation which has been attacked in the appeal.