D N PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.4.1995 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shahdol (for short the 'district Forum') in Complaint Case No.55/93, by which the complaint was rejected.

(2.) Appellant, who was complainant in District Forum had alleged in his complaint that since the time his telephone was attached to Electronic Exchange, he has not been able to talk to certain phones in Shahdol. He also complained that his complaints to the Department have not been attended to by the opposite parties. He had filed certain documents in support of his complaint. He further alleged that opposite party has not published the telephone directory every six months as promised and, therefore, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for directions from the District Forum to opposite party, (a) to bring about improvement in the working of Telephone Exchange, (b) not to take rent for telephone from the complainant from the date his telephone was connected to electronic exchange and whatever amount has been deposited be refunded to him; and (c) to publish the Telephone Directory immediately. He also prayed for award of compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Respondent, who was opposite party in District Forum denied all the allegations. They stated in reply that Shahdol has telephones connected to Electronic Exchange and also to stronger exchange. There are only six lines for incoming calls and six lines for outgoing calls between the two types of telephone exchanges. Whenever they are busy, the caller gets a busy tone. They also stated that complainants complaints about his telephone was attended to promptly and the telephone was repaired. About publication of Telephone Directory, they stated because of expansion of telephone facilities, the numbers undergo change. It is not possible for department to publish Telephone Directory, however, they have provided three numbers 197, 198 and 5012 where such information is being given free. They also publish a list of changed numbers in local newspaper. The District Forum after hearing both parties held that complainant was unable to prove his allegations. District Forum found that three out of four letters filed as exhibits are of a date later than the date of filing complaint. District Forum also observed in their order that complainant has not kept any record about days or dates when he could not talk on telephone. Thus specific details to prove the allegations have not been given. District Forum, therefore, rejected the complaint by their impugned order referred to in para 1.

(3.) We have heard the parties and have perused the record of the case. Perusal of the record reveals that there is nothing perverse about the findings of District Forum. We were surprised to see some of the contentions of the appellant particularly because he belongs to legal profession. In our opinion, the District Forum has considered all his allegations which were worth analysing and passed a well reasoned order. In a District where telephone facilities are expanding, the consumer has to put up with some difficulties during transition period. This is a normal happening and cannot be called deficiency in service. Similarly, existence of six lines for outgoing calls is again transitory and cannot be termed deficiency of service. Complainant's other complaint about faulty working of his instrument has been attended to by opposite party and the defect has been removed as per the reply. District Forum has observed that complainant has not given any specific dates nor has kept any record, which could have been helpful in finding out the truth. In their absence, the complaint has been rightly rejected.