GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. PARDEEP CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pardeep Chawla is a Manager in Punjab National Bank and was posted at Chandigarh in 1993. On his transfer to New Delhi, he made an application on 24/2/1994 for shifting of his telephone and providing him an alternative one in the vicinity, of Mahanagar Telephones, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. The deptt. failed to provide the alternative facility and on a complaint instituted by the subscriber, the Distt. Forum-II ordered payment of compensation of Rs.15,000.00 on 2/11/1998. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted by the General Manager, Telephones, Chandigarh.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Pardeep Chawla the complainant was a resident of Sector 47, Chandigarh and telephone No.532532 was installed at his residential premises. On his transfer to New Delhi, he made an application for transfer of his telephone to New Delhi under the policy of "transfer on all India basis". He had also specifically mentioned that he was physically handicapped because both his legs were afflicted with polio and the facility of telephone was not only important but essential. The telephone deptt. had been deficient and the surrender certificate was issued to him on 6.9.1994. By that time, the complainant was transferred from New Delhi to Faridabad and the transfer of the telephone was required at 103, Sector 8, Faridabad. The complainant's wife also came to Chandigarh personally and contacted the Commercial Office (Telephones) and General Manager Telephones, Chandigarh as described in letter dated 22.2.1996, but of no avail. A surrender certificate was also specifically entrusted to the deptt, but it also met with the same fate. A detailed affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Chawla dated 1.8.1997 has been perused. Paras 7,8 and 9 thereof are reproduced as under : "7. That the wife of the deponent visited the office of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 12.4.1996 alongwith all the original papers in order to submit the same, but the respondent No.2 refused to receive the abovesaid documents and expressed his inability to do anything in this regard. " "8. That the deponent is a physically handicapped man, having 60% disability and both the legs are afflicted with Polio and Cellipars on both the legs and the delay in installation of telephone have caused great hardships and difficulty to the deponent. " "9. That the deponent suffered monetary loss as well as physical and mental agony and injury in reputation on account of deficiency in service. "

(3.) In the circumstances of this case, we feel that an objection that at the first stage the deptt. was not satisfied with the signatures of the subscriber on the application in the prescribed form specifically mentioning that the telephone was to be shifted at GH-4/93, DDA Flats (SFS), Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi was a cruel joke with a Manager of a Scheduled Bank. The deficiency in not rendering of service of shifting of the telephone on the application dated 24/2/1994 is writ large in the circumstances of this case and the finding of fact does not call for interference.