GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH SOMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is by the Telecom Department and the challenge is to the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated December 3, 1997 whereby Execution Application filed by Gurdarshan Singh Somal was allowed with the direction to the department to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of three months and on failure to suffer sentence of imprisonment to be imposed by the Fora. This order was passed on an application filed under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act after holding that the Telecom Department failed to hold proper enquiry as asked.

(2.) Alongwith the Revision Petition, an application for condoning delay was filed which is stated to be of 146 days treating the period of limitation to be 30 days. The District Forum on September 26, 1997 while disposing of the complaint filed by Gurdarshan Singh Somal had given direction to the Telecom Department to restore the telephone connection of Gurdarshan Singh, the complainant, within one month and secondly to hold enquiry into the excess billing after joining the complainant within three months. The Telecom Department was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The application under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed by the complainant alleging that the Telecom Department did not comply with the order aforesaid for taking action. On notice of the application, the same was contested by the Telecom Department, inter alia, asserting that the telephone had already been restored and that direction was given to CAO (TRA) for holding the enquiry as ordered by the Forum. It was stated that no time schedule was prescribed by the District Forum for holding of such an enquiry. Compensation of Rs.2,000/- was also paid to the complainant. During the pendency of this application, the General Manager (Telephones) was directed to put in personal appearance and he did on November 5, 1997 and filed the detailed reply to the show cause notice mentioning therein that the Enquiry Officer had held the enquiry and submitted the report on October 31, 1997 after serving registered notice on the complainant which was received back undelivered. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted was not in accordance with the directions given. He referred to the statements of the witnesses recorded in the enquiry even prior to the sending of the registered letter referred to above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Telecom Department has argued that the District Forum has misread the evidence produced. The statements of witnesses were recorded referring to non-service of the notice and return of the registered letter. Such statements were not on merits of the case and obviously when registered notice was received back, the complainant was not required to be further given any notice. It is not for the Fora to make any comment on the enquiry held, suffice it to say, after Enquiry Report was submitted and that is compliance of the order passed by the District Forum. On merits, if the complainant feels aggrieved of that report, he can take action according to law. As far as proceedings under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act are concerned, no finding can be recorded in the facts of the present case that the General Manager (Telephones) had either not complied with the orders passed or had disobeyed the directions given.