- (1.)THE Appellant is the Department of Telecommunications represented by its General Manager, Goa. They seek to challenge the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum), South Goa in Complaint No. 110/1999 whereunder they were directed to pay to the Respondent a consolidated amount of Rs. 12,000 on account of mental suffering, etc. and further to pay costs of Rs. 5,000. The Respondent is the Original Complainant.
(2.)SUCCINCTLY stated, it is the Complainants case that she subscribed to the telephone services of the opposite party and was allotted indicator No. 737514 installed on 19.3.1995 at her then residence at Fatorda. The Complainant than moved residence to her present address and desired to shift her telephone as well. Accordingly, an application came to be filed with the opposite party on 10.5.1999 but there was no response. On inquires made with the Technical Section at Margao she was informed that her application had not been sent by the Commercial Section. When the Complainant inquired with the Commercial Section, she was informed that her application had already been sent to the Technical Section along with necessary orders. When the Complainant re -approached the Technical Section, she was informed by SDOP Mr. S.N. Patil that certain procedure had to be followed along with some documents but refused to elucidate. Soon after, the Complainant received a letter dated 21.6.1999, from SDE. Phones (III) with number of false allegations. The Complainant was asked top produce documents, but the nature of the required documents was not disclosed. The Complainant issued reply to the said letter to General Manager Telecom on 9.7.1999 with copy to SDE, Phones, inter alia requesting specific information regarding nature of the document required to be produced. However, there was neither reply nor compliance with the request. The copy to the SDE, Phones was returned undelivered.
(3.)THE Complainant being a busy Advocate and lecturer at the Law College was put to great inconvenience and loss due to the utter negligence and disregard shown by the opposite party in this matter. The Complainant was deprived use of the telephone as a result of which she was compelled to subscribe to mobile telephone by paying Rs. 7,749 in addition to monthly bills. In addition to seeking direction to shift the said telephone to a new address, the Complainant prayed aggregate compensation of Rs. 38,000 and rebate of rentals.
In brief, the case of the Opposite Party is that on 16.6.1999 Shri Barve, JTO, Margao verbally informed the Complainant that he was in receipt of the advice note issued by the commercial Section. The Complainant was also informed that shifting cases are granted only after obtaining feasibility and genuineness report (F and G report). Shifting of the Complainants telephone was pending because of verification of genuineness and bona fides of the requests for shift. The Complainant was asked to produce any documents of proof of address. Since the Complainant did not submit the documents, a letter was issued on 21.6.1999 by SDE, Phones. Receipt of the Complainants letter dated 9.7.1999 by General Manager, Telecom was admitted; but the letter was not replied since the Complainant had already been made aware of the nature of documents to be submitted. Shifting could not be carried out only on account of failure of the Complainant to produce the required documents. The allegations made in the Complaint regarding monetary loss, etc. were denied.