SURINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.9.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) passed in Complaint Case No.1378 of 1998, Sh. Surinder Kumar V/s. Union of India and Ors.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal, may briefly, be narrated as under : the appellant/complainant, a practising Advocate in Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, resident of 3279/2, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh is a subscriber of Phone No.695771 (Consumer No.3109453 ). As per averments made, consequent to appellant/complainant shifting his residence on 16th September, 1998 to Mohali at House No. HE-324, Phase I, Mohali, applied for shifting of above mentioned telephone number at his new residence vide application brought on record as Annexure C-1. The appellant/complainant has averred that inspite of his application, no advice note was issued by the respondents and when he approached the office of respondents/ops, he was told by one Mr. Tuli, an employee of respondents that his file has been misplaced and allegedly, the appellant/complainant was directed to contact after a gap of 10 to 15 days. When the appellant/complainant again approached the respondents/ops, the status of his application was the same i. e. the file could not be located and he was directed to come again after few days. The appellant/complainant has alleged that he suffered a great deal of harassment and mental agony, even in knowing the fate of his application after numerous visits to the office of the respondents.

(3.) The appellant/complainant has further alleged that no advice note till 30th November, 1998 had been issued and no order regarding shifting of aforesaid telephone was issued. However, a bill bearing No.22214865 dated 1.11.1998 at revised rental rate of Rs.360/- was issued by the respondents/ops Department despite the change of meter on 13th September, 1998 and inspite of the fact that the telephone was not used by the complainant for the period mentioned in the bill. The appellant/complainant has averred that the respondents/ops are not entitled to charge the rent in the absence of telephone being functional at his premises. The appellant/complainant deposited the amount payable in the bill on 25.11.1998 and copies of the same and the receipt issued are brought on record vide Annexure C-2. Further, the appellant/complainant on 1st December, 1998 contacted respondent/o. P. No.3, Commercial Officer (Telephones), Mr. R. Ramaranjan regarding the status of his application for shifting the telephone, he was shocked to know that the position of the application was same. The appellant has alleged that he has been put to great financial loss in addition to inconvenience and harassment by the non-shifting of his telephone and payment of the bills issued to him unjustifiably by the respondents/ops Department.