JAGANNATH NATTHUJI RAJAS Vs. DISTRICT ENGINEER TELECOM AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent District Engineer (Telecom), Amravati Maharashtra.

(2.) VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were, that a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s. Rajas Agro Products, had the facility of a telephone. The petitioner moved an application before the respondent to shift the said telephone bearing No. 74018 to another location. When this was not done, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to shift the telephone to the designated destination and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,000 along with cost of Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner/complainant. Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, where the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. It is in these circumstances this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute that the original telephone was in the name of M/s. Rajas Agro Products, a proprietorship firm of three persons, namely, Shri Dayalanath Natthuji Rajas, Sau, Lalitabai Jagannath Rajas and Shri Raghunathrao Natthuji Rajas. This firm was dissolved on 1. 7. 1988. The dissolution deed is on record. From 1. 7. 1988 M/s. Rajas Agro Products, became a proprietary concern and a sole proprietor is shown as the petitioner Shri Jagannath Natthuji Rajas. The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that the connection had been given to the proprietorship firm and it could not be transferred in favour of the petitioner/complainant whereas it is the case of the petitioner/complainant that since he stepped in the shoes of the proprietorship concern by virtue of dissolution deed the telephone stood transferred in his name, and he was entitled to get it transferred to a new location. It was also the case of the petitioner before us that this complaint has been filed based on a 'power-of-attorney' executed in favour of the petitioner by one of the original partners.