ORDER V.K. Agrawal, 1. This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 6-9-2003 in complaint No. 57/2003 by District Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (herein-after called the' District Forum' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/ appellant. 2. Undisputably, the complainant/appellant was a subscriber of the respondents and has a telephone connection No. 251614 at his farm house situated at Maharana Pratap ward, Mungeli. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has been regularly paying the telephone bil1s towards the said telephone connection. The complainant applied to the respdts. to shi ft the above telephone connection from her farm house to her residence at Sardar Patel Ward, Mungeli. 3. The grievance raised in the complaint by the complainant/appellant was that though she was ready to pay the necessary charge for shifting of the above telephone connection from her farm house to her residence, yet the respondents did not accede to her request and did not shift the telephone as requested by her. The complainant served the respects, a notice dated 13-3-2003 through her counsel. However, the respondents did not take any action towards shifting of the telephone connection. Hence the complaint, wherein it was prayed that the respondents be directed to shift her telephone connection and should also pay her compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was averred in the written version that another telephone connection No. 25/227 was installed at the residence of the complainant at Sardar patel ward, Mungeli. The said connection was in the name of her father-in-law Kesarichand Kotadia. the said telephone connection was disconnected on 8-1-2003 due to non-payment of the bill. It was averred that after the said disconnection the complainant requested for the transfer of the telephone connection to her residence which was not permissible under the rules. Accordingly, reply dated 22-3-2003 was sent by the respondents to the complainant/appellant. It was averred that the respondents were not obliged to transfer the telephone connection as requested by the complainant/appel1ant because it was against the rules of the respondents. 5. Accordingly, reply dated 22-3-2003 was sent by the respondents to the complainant/appellant. It was averred that the respondents were not obliged to transfer the telephone connection as requested by the complainant/appel1ant because it was against the rules of the respondents. 5. District Forum has held that the request of the complainant We s justifiably disallowed by respondents, in view of Rule 416 (2) (d) of the Indian Telegraph Rules-1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) and that there was no deficiency in service by the respondents. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant submitted that the request made by the complainant was proper. The Rules did not confer on the respondents authority to refuse to shift the telephone. Hence, complainant's request was disallowed by the respondents without justification. It was therefore, submitted that the respondents by not accepting the request of the complainant committed deficiency in service and the complainant/appellant is entitled for compensation as claimed by her. 7. However. as against above the learned counsel for respondents submitted that it was the discretion of the respondents to accept or not to accept the prayer for shifting the telephone and that the facility as above could not be claimed by the complainant as of right. It was submitted that under Rule 416 (2) (b) of the Rules, the respondents exercised their discretion not to shi ft the telephone connection in view of non-payment of bill for the other telephone in the residential premises of the complainant. Hence, it was contended that the request was justifiably rejected by the respondents. 8. The question that arise for consideration is : as to whether the respondents were entitled to disallow the prayer of the complainant/appellant to shift her telephone connection from her farm house, to her residence? 9. As already noticed, it is not in dispute that the telephone connection 251614 is in the name of the complainant/appellant and she was regularly paying the bills of the said telephone connection. It is alleged by the respondents that another telephone connection 251227 in the name of Kesarichand Kotadia was installed at the residence of the complainant and the same has been disconnected on 8-1-2003 due to non-payment of the bills. The refusal of the prayer for shifting of the telephone was on the ground of non-payment of bills of the said other telephone No. 251227. The refusal of the prayer for shifting of the telephone was on the ground of non-payment of bills of the said other telephone No. 251227. As already noticed telephone connection No. 251227 was not in the name of the complainant/appellant. It was stated during arguments that Kesarichand Kotadia was the father-in-law of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant herself was not a subscriber of the other telephone connection No. 251277 which was disconnected for non-payment of bills. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents were within their rights and exercised their discretion under Rule 416 (2) (1) in not accepting the complainant's request to shift the telephone connection. It was contended that sub clause (d) of Rule 416 (2) (1) enabled the respondents to reject the prayer of the complainant due to 'any other relevant factor'. It may be useful in the above context, to reproduce the Rule 416 which reads: 416. Power of Telegraph Authority. 1. The Telegraph authority may reject any application for the connection for a new telephone or for providing any similar service or for the alteration of any existing service. 2. Before rejecting any application under sub-rule (1) the telegraph authority shall have due regard to the following factors, namely: (a) the antecedents of the applicant and where the application was made by any person duly authorised by the applicant, the antecedents of such person; (b) whether there are any telephone dues outstanding in the name of: (i) the applicant; or (if) the person duly authorised by the applicant, if the application was made by such authorised person on behalf of the applicant; (c) Whether any Gazetted officer of the Central Govt. or a State Govt. duly authorised by such Govt. has recommended to the Telegraph authority that in the interests of the maintenance of law and order any telephone of any service is referred to in sub-rule (1), should not be provided to the applicant or, as the case may be, to the person duly authorised by the applicant; and (d) any other relevant factor, 3. No action shall be taken under sub rule (1), unless notice of not less than seven days has been given in writing to the person concerned and the Telegraph authority has considered the representation, if any made by such person in the matter. 11. No action shall be taken under sub rule (1), unless notice of not less than seven days has been given in writing to the person concerned and the Telegraph authority has considered the representation, if any made by such person in the matter. 11. It would appear from the above that under sub-rule (1) of rule 416 the telephone authority has been vested with discretion to reject an application for connection of a new telephone or for providing any similar service or for the alteration of any existing service. As per sub-rule 2( a) the antecedents of the applicant or persons authorised to make an application for connection may be taken into consideration. Under sub-rule (b) of rule 2 the telephone authority would take into consideration whether there are any telephone dues outstanding in the name of the applicant or the persons authorised by the applicant. Under sub-rule (c) telephone connection may not be granted, in the Gazetted officer of Central or State Govt. recommends that in the interest of maintenance of law & order any telephone or service referred 10 sub-rule (1) should not be provided to the applicant. Clause (d) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 416 or the Rules is a resudiary clause and provides that an application under sub-rule (I) may be rejected due to any other relevant factor. 12. It is clear, that in the instant case, none of the clauses (a) (b) & (c) under sub- rule-2 of rule 416 of the Rules is applicable. It was contended that refusal was under sub- clause (d) of sub-rule 2 which provides for rejection of application due to 'any other relevant factor'. According to the learned counsel for respondents non-payment of dues of the other telephone No. 251227 constituted 'other relevant factor' for rejection of the complainant's application. As noticed earlier the said telephone connection was not obtained and was not in the name of the complainant/appellant. Therefore, the complainant/appellant cannot be held responsible for non-payment of bills of the aforementioned other telephone connection. Her case was therefore, not covered under clause (b) of sub-rule 2 of rule 416 of the Rules. The said Rule does not specifically provide for rejection of an application on the basis of non-payment of bills of any other family member of the subscriber. Had it been so, the rule would have specifical1y mentioned such default. Her case was therefore, not covered under clause (b) of sub-rule 2 of rule 416 of the Rules. The said Rule does not specifically provide for rejection of an application on the basis of non-payment of bills of any other family member of the subscriber. Had it been so, the rule would have specifical1y mentioned such default. Moreover the default as above has not been mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule 2 of rule 416 of the Rules or independently. In the circumstances, non-payment of bill by any other subscriber who may also happen to be a member of the complainant cannot constitute 'any other relevant factor' under sub. ru1e 2 of rule 416 of the Rules. Hence the non-payment of bill relating to other telephone would not constitute a good cause or justification, on the basis of which application for shifting of telephone connection etc. could be rejected. 13. It may be mentioned in the above context that 'other relevant factor' should hear corelation with other grounds as are enumerated in the clauses of sub-rule (2) of Rule 416 of the Rules. Other 'relevant factor' cannot be arbitarily determined by the respondent and discretion to reject the application on 'other relevant factor' should be exercised with care and caution and it should bear rationale with other clauses of Rule 416 (2) of the Rules. In the instant case, as noticed earlier, there is no allegation that the complainant appellant was a defaulter. She cannot be punished in the absence of specific rule in that regard for the default of some other subscriber who may incidentally be also her family member. 14. Therefore. there appears to be no propriety or justification \ under Rule 416 of the Rules) to reject the request of the complainant/appellant to shin her telephone from her farm house to her residence. 15. Respondents therefore, were not justified in not accepting the complainant's/request merely on the ground that the bills for other telephone connection in the name of her father-in-law were not paid due to which the said telephone connection was disconnected. This would almost amount 10 coercing the complainant/appellant to make good the default of some other subscriber, even if he happens to be her family member. In the circumstances we find that respondent by not shifting the telephone as requested by the complainant/appellant, have committed deficiency in service. This would almost amount 10 coercing the complainant/appellant to make good the default of some other subscriber, even if he happens to be her family member. In the circumstances we find that respondent by not shifting the telephone as requested by the complainant/appellant, have committed deficiency in service. The district Forum erred in holding otherwise. 16. So far as compensation is concerned it is clear that the respondents have not shifted the telephone connection for a long time despite request made by the appcl1ant subscriber. However, it appears that the request as above was turned down probably due to misconception about the rules or due to misinterpretation thereof by the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances, Rs. 5,000/- deserves to be granted as compensation to the complainant/appellant. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is ai1owed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that respondents shall shift the telephone connection No. 251614 as requested by the complainant/appellant on her paying necessary charges as per rule, within one month from the date of this order. The respondents shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as compensation to the complainant/appellant. The cost of this litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) shall also be payable to the complainant/appellant by the respondents. Appeal Allowed.