Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 70 (UTT)

B. S. N. L. v. S. D. Pant

2004-05-21

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the B.S.N.L. against the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) as compensation and also not to charge rental or other charges from 07/ 08.02.2002 to 28..11.2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was serving in B.H.E.L, Ranipur, Hardwar. He had telephone connection No.421859. He retired and shifted to his Subhash Nagar. On 07/08.02.2002, he applied that his telephone be shifted to his Sub hash Nagar house but it was not shifted. Finally it was shifted to his house at Subhash Nagar on 29.11.2002, It is said that from 07/ 08.02.2002 to 29.11.2002. the complainant remained without the telephone. He had fulfilled all the formalities but non-shifting of his telephone is a deficiency in service in spite of complaint and notice. The telephone department did not hear. Hence he filed a complaint. 3. It is admitted fact that telephone has been installed at the new house of the complainant on 29.11.2002 but the case of the telephone department is that in Jwalapur area, where the house of the complainant is situated 06 KR.L.U. exchange was working till 11.10.2002 and there was absolutely no vacancy for giving a fresh connection. The exchange was converted on 11.10.2002 and after the conversion on 29.11.2002, telephone of the complainant was transferred, It was alleged that this was not deliberate. 4. After hearing the parties, the Learned Forum allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. The Learned Forum did not consider this fact that the new connection was not fisible in Jwalapur exchange, therefore the transfer could not be made immediately. As soon as the capacity was increased and new exchange was established, the connection was given. The only objection of the Learned Forum was that the opposite party kept on running in the department of the appellant but he was not given proper reply. We are not able to believe that the complainant was not informed that there was no• vacancy in the telephone exchange of Jwalapur. The complainant could not prove that there was any vacancy. 6. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that several other persons were given connections after 07/08.02.2002 from Jwalapur exchange. We are not able to believe that the complainant was not informed that there was no• vacancy in the telephone exchange of Jwalapur. The complainant could not prove that there was any vacancy. 6. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that several other persons were given connections after 07/08.02.2002 from Jwalapur exchange. He was asked to name anybody but he was unable to mention. There was absolutely no evidence that any other person was given connection from Jwalapur exchange after 07/08.02.2002 to 28.11.2002 and the complainant was discriminated. 7. The non-transfer of the telephone of the complainant to the new house was not deliberate. There was no malafide on the part of the telephone department rather it was unable to transfer and shift because of non-availability of vacancy in the telephone exchange of Jwalapur. This cannot be said to be deficiency in service of the telephone department. 8. It is true that from 071 08.02.2002 to 28.11.2002, the complainant was not having any telephone, therefore the telephone department should, not charge any telephone rent or other charges from 08.02.2002 to 28.11.2002 but as there was absolutely no deficiency in service, the order of compensation of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand) is unjustified and is to be recalled. The appeal is to be allowed to this extent. As regards the quantum of cost, it is also uncalled for. There was no deficiency in service of the telephone department, therefore there was no question of any cost The order under appeal is to be modified accordingly. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of payment of compensation of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand' Only) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) is hereby quashed. The rest part of the order as passed by the Learned Forum shall remain intact. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.