GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, TELEPHONES DEPT. Vs. K.RAMACHANDRA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in CD. No. 103/ 1998 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor is the appellant. The complainant filed the C.D. stating that he applied for a telephone for his residence on 19.5.1992. On 19.5.1992 he was asked by the appellant to make deposits for a sum of Rs. 600/ - before 29.6.1992. He made the said deposit on 8.6.1992 and obtained a receipt. As there was no response for a long time he approached the office of the appellant for installation of the telephone. Number of persons who applied for connection much later also got telephone connection. Therefore, he issued a legal notice on 20.11.1997. Even then there was no response and as such he approached the District Forum for relief. The appellant filed a counter stating that the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.600/ - by 29.6.1992. It is also admitted that the complainant remitted the money under a receipt on 8.6.1992 and that the village of the complainant falls within the Panduru Exchange. The issuance of registered notice by the complainant on 20.11.1997 is also admitted. But what is disputed is that the complainant failed to intimate the Department about the payment and, therefore, the delay. The District Forum did not accept this explanation. It is true that a person who has applied for the telephone paid the deposits as demanded would not wait for years together without intimating the Department about the payment of the fees or making requests for installation of the telephone. This natural conduct on the part of any consumer cannot be ignored. The District Forum in our view rightly observed that having made the deposits as required the complainant must have visited the office of the appellant and intimated them about the payment of deposit and it is the appellant that did not take prompt action.

(2.) MR . V. Vinod Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the telephone connection was given on 4.8.1998. This happened five years after the deposit is made, one year after the legal notice is issued and after the complaint was filed by the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant was responsible for deficiency of service. In this view of the matter the order of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - to the complainant is not unreasonable or excessive. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.