Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 74 (UTT)

B. R. Verma, A. E. Bazpur v. Masood Ali Raza

2003-07-11

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2003
ORDER K.D. Shahi, Chairman - This is an appeal by the Telephone Department against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2001 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant Sh. Masood Ali Raza was allowed for a sum of Rs.17,400/against the Telephone Department and the then Telephone Inspector. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10, 000/- with the Telephone Department on 19.7.1995. On 1.8.1995 the complainant was informed that advice note has been issued but still the telephone was not installed. Subsequently the Telephone Inspector had informed that since the complainant resides at long distance and there is no wire in the stock with the Department, therefore, it will take time. The Telephone Inspector was demanding a bribe of Rs.2, 000/-. It is alleged that several telephones, which were in ordinary category, were installed immediately, whereas the complainant has applied in O.Y.T. category. On 12.8.1995 the complainant was informed that there was a telephone in the house where the complainant resides. The bill of that telephone is pending. The complainant should deposit it. The complainant informed that one Sh. Purshottam was tenant in the house. He has left the house. Then the Telephone Inspector told that there are dues against the landlord. The complainant who has filed the complaint has stated that he is not liable to pay for the telephone of the landlord. At any rate the complainant could not pay bribe of Rs.2, 000/ - to the Telephone Inspector, therefore, his telephone was not installed. 3. The Telephone Department contested the complaint before the learned Forum and admitted that amount was deposited by the complainant in O.Y.T. Scheme. It is said that when the officer of the Department went to inspect the spot, it was found that nobody was residing there with the name of the complainant. In that premises two telephones have also been disconnected for non-payment. It is said that the complainant is a Govt. employee. He is also been transferred somewhere. After taking the evidences of the parties, the learned Forum held that there was deficiency in service of the Telephone Department and allowed the complaint with a simple interest of 10% from the date of deposit. The learned Forum also allowed for compensation of Rs.2, 000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by that 'order the present appeal has been filed. After taking the evidences of the parties, the learned Forum held that there was deficiency in service of the Telephone Department and allowed the complaint with a simple interest of 10% from the date of deposit. The learned Forum also allowed for compensation of Rs.2, 000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by that 'order the present appeal has been filed. We are surprised at the attitude of the Telephone Department in filing the .appeal. The complainant is a different person than the earlier tenant. He is a Marketing Inspector in the Gurunanak Rice Mills. whereas earlier tenant was Sh. Purshottam. Similarly, if there were some dues against the landlord then also an independent consumer cannot be pressed to deposit for the landlord or somebody else to get a telephone in his name. If the complainant was not entitled to a connection he could have been refused but at least his deposit should have been refunded to him. The learned Counsel for the Telephone Department Mr. M.K. Kohli argued that the complainant could take the said amount on proper application. What should be the proper application after the order of the learned Forum is not clear. At least the order of the learned Forum could have, been complied with. The learned Counsel for the Telephone Department referred the ruling reported in Union of India v. N. Vasudevanl , wherein it was held that on inquiry if the Telephone Department finds that the person is not residing in the premises, it could refuse to instal the connection. Although the Commissioner appointed at the Forum gave a report that the complainant was residing in the said house but even if this fact is taken to be correct then also if the complainant was not entitled to connection, the amount should have been refunded. 5. The learned Counsel for the Telephone Department further referred the ruling reported in Gautam Rasiklal Chudgar v. Union of India & Anr.2, wherein it has been held that a person has applied for connection in O.Y.T. Category and connection was not given to him. He is not a consumer. We did not agree with this ruling in so much so that the complainant has deposited the amount, he has applied to purchase the services of the Telephone Department, he has paid the consideration for that. He is not a consumer. We did not agree with this ruling in so much so that the complainant has deposited the amount, he has applied to purchase the services of the Telephone Department, he has paid the consideration for that. The Telephone Department has also promised to instal the telephone by accepting the deposit and issuing the advice note. But the telephone has not been installed. Therefore, the complainant may not be consumer of any telephone but at least he has deposited the amount to avail the services and he is a potential consumer. The services were promised and if not given that will amount deficiency in service. 6. This appeal has got no force. Very rightly interest has been awarded. The Telephone Department should pay it along with the original deposit made by the complainant. ORDER The appeal has got no force and is dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.