GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE OF TELECOM Vs. RAJANI RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in O. P.812/1998 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur are the appellants. The complainant alleged, she applied for telephone connection on 15.7.1993 by making deposit of Rs.2,000/- as per demand note issued by the opposite parties. The connection sought was from Arangottukara Telephone Exchange. Her grievance is, over looking priority even those who applied during the year 1996-97 were given telephone connection but she was not given connection. When she made enquiry she was told that area falls within the jurisdiction of Palakkad district so she had to seek connection from Chathannur Exchange. She mentions the telephone number of the person who resides 200 metres beyond her residence to whom connection was provided by the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their version sought to maintains that on detecting that her area would fall in Palakkad district her application was transferred. The telephone authorities have enough power to transfer the application for connection from one exchange to another exchange under ITR 418. Reliance was also made on Exts. R1 and R2 in support of their contention. They wanted dismissal of the complaint. Before the District Forum complainant produced Exts. P1 and P2 and on behalf of the opposite parties R1 to R3 were produced. On a consideration of the said material the District Forum made a direction to the opposite parties to give telephone connection to the complainant in Arangottukara Telephone Exchange and to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain that the view taken by the District Forum is not correct as once it is detected that the area falls with the Palakkad district, they were competent to transfer the application and as per Ext. R1 the local area of the Exchange systems has to be determined in accordance with short distance charging area. In view of the said material, according to the learned Counsel, interference by this Commission is necessary.

(3.) Even as per the version though the application on the deposit as per the demand note was as early as 15.7.1993 the opposite parties then took time till 24.6.1996 to transfer the application, and the transfer of the application is sought to be justified by saying that the area was detected to fall in Palakkad district but they took 3 years' time for detecting it. That itself would constitute deficiency of service. Apart from the same, though there is power under ITR 418 to transfer the application, every power vested with a public authority has to be exercised reasonably. So the particular act of the authority will be tested against the underlying principle that every power vested in any authority has to be exercised reasonably. When the facts are as indicated above the opposite parties cannot get shelter under ITR 418. Apart from the same, Ext. R1 which gave power to redefine the area was in 1998 whereas the application and deposit by the complainant was in 1993. There is deficiency of service. Therefore, the order does not call for any interference. The appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed.