COMMERCIAL OFFICER TELEPHONES Vs. GULSHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Telephone Department challenging order of District Forum, Ropar dated November 19, 1996 whereby a direction was given to the Telephone Department to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant Dr. Gulshan Rai and the aforesaid amount should be deducted from the salary of the errant official of the Telephone Department by fixing responsibility and to submit the report to the District Forum by February 22,1997 and that non compliance of the directions was likely to attract the penal provisions of Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

(2.) Since no version was submitted by the Telephone Department before the District Forum, only brief facts as stated in the complaint are being noticed. Dr. Gulshan Rai, complainant applied for new telephone connection in February, 1995 on deposit of Rs.2,000/-. The orders for installation of the telephone were passed by the authority on September 26,1995. Since the telephone was not installed, on September 3,1996 the complainant approached the District Forum. It is thereafter that the telephone was installed on October 10,1996. The delay in installation of the telephone, after the authorities had passed the order, was a deficiency in rendering service as alleged. The complainant produced his own affidavit in support of the complaint and produced documents indicating the representations made to the authorities in this respect (Annexures A-5 to A-7 ). The matter was also taken up in the Tribunal Lok Adalat (Annexure A-3) in March, 1996. The District Forum accepted the version of the complainant which was supported by his affidavit and the documents and held that there was deficiency in rendering service and thus directed payment of compensation.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department is not available today. We have gone through the grounds of the appeal as well as the written version to the appeal submitted by Dr. Gulshan Rai.