- (1.) THE petitioner had sent a letter petition complaining of harassment, mental torture and anguish, which he had to suffer on account of casual and careless approach of the employees of the Telephone Department, Panaji. The telephone of the petitioner was dead from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996, but inspite of that he received Bill dated 1st September, 1996, in which 11 S. T. D. calls were shown to have been made from the said dead telephone between 22nd June, 1996 to 9th July, 1996-the total calls being 234. On 28th July, 1996, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the General Manager of Telecom, Goa, requesting for adjustment of rental corresponding to 46 days when the telephone was dead. In Bill dated 1st September, 1996, no adjustment of rental was made and, instead, 11 S. T. D. calls totalling 234 units were shown to have been made from the said telephone during the period the telephone was dead. From then onwards, the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for more than three years by the Telephone Department. The petitioner not only went to the Telephone Department on 21 different occasions, but had to draft applications/letters, had to wait for officers of the Department in the corridors, or in offices and had to spend money on typing, xeroxing, postage, etc. We shall deal with the total apathy of the Telephone Department towards a consumer, while dealing in detail as to what had transpired in this matter during the said period of more than three years. The petitioner seeks reimbursement of expenses incurred by him as well as compensation amounting to Rs. 4,800/- in all, as well as costs.
(2.) WE have heard learned Advocate Shri Sonak, who was appointed to assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner, as well as learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri Sameer Bandodkar.
(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Sonak took us through the records as well as affidavits filed by the department and pointed out that the manner in which the petitioner has been treated by the Department calls for severe action against the concerned employees of the Department who have not only shown total lack of concern for the consumer, but are responsible for the harassment caused to the petitioner. He also urged that besides the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the petitioner, compensation and exemplary costs be awarded in the matter. In support of his submissions he has relied upon (Birendra Kumar Bhuwalka v. Union of India and others), A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 273; (Naresh Chandra Roy v. Union of India and others), A. I. R. 1987 Cal. 147; (M/s. Rao and Co. , Panaji v. The Accounts Officer, D. E. T. Office, Panaji, and others), A. I. R. 1986 Bom. 227 and (The Peoples Union For Civil Liberties (P. U. C. L.) v. Union of India and another), 1997 (3) Bom. C. R. 38 : 1997 (1) S. C. C. 301.;