R C BATURA Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the District Forum No. I dated 4.4.1997, in Complaint Case No.2472/94 entitled Ramesh Chander Batura V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that the telephone No.7114662 was installed at the Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, residence of the appellant. The appellant shifted his residence to A-13, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and applied for the transfer of his above said telephone to his new residence on 6.7.1990. The appellant received a letter from the respondent dated 25.7.1990, informing him that the transfer of his telephone from Rana Pratap Bagh to Rohini Exchange was technically not feasible due to the limited capacity of the said exchange. Thereafter, the appellant wrote to the respondent on 31.12.1991 but the respondent again informed the appellant vide letter dated 16.3.1992 that the Rohini Exchange was still freezed. It is the case of the appellant that he made repeated visits and contacted various officers/officials of the respondent but it was only on 26.4.1994 that he was orally informed by the Commercial Officer of the respondent that an O. B. dated 18.5.1993 had been issued for installation of telephone at the appellant's new residence. In the mean time the appellant had again shifted his residence falling within the Rohini Exchange area itself and informed the change of address to the respondent on 6.1.1994, the telephone of the appellant, however, was not installed despite having been issued O. B. dated 18.5.1993 and, therefore, on 18.12.1994 the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

(3.) The respondent filed its reply/written version stating therein that the contract for the expansion of the Rohini Exchange was given to a contractor but since disputes arose between the respondent and the contractor, latter approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.16/94 and obtained a stay resulting in the work of expansion of Rohini Exchange being stopped and it was only on the vacation of the stay in January, 1995 that the work was resumed. In the circumstances, the respondent stated that the delay was due to the above circumstances and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part.