The main legal point established is that the Telecom Department's deficiency in service and failure to communicate the reasons for the delay justified the compensation granted by the District Forum.

Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member—The present appeal has been filed by the General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 209 of 1997 wherein the District Forum had held the Telephone Department deficient in service provided to the complainant and consequently ordered the opposite parties, now appellants to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the appellate jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant/ respondent Mr. Swaran Singh Parwana r/o of House No. 59, Shanti Nagar, Gali No. 5, Mani Majra applied for telephone in the general category on 9.11.1995 and deposited requisite charges of Rs. 3,000/- and the same was acknowledged vide Demand Note No. P-95-13594 on 8.3.1996. An Advice Note bearing No. E-07578 by the Commercial Officer II O/O GMT, Chandigarh for the installation of telephone connection at the above mentioned address of the complainant/respondent was also issued. The complainant/respondent has averred that the installation of new telephone connection should take place within seven days of the issue of advice note. He has brought on record Swamy ‘s Treatise on Telephone Rules, wherein on page 16 under the heading Release of New Connections, it is given that same should take place within seven days of the issue of advice note (Annexure- B). The present complaint was instituted since he was given the telephone connection 11 months subsequent to the issuance of advice note. Mr. Swaran Singh Parwana has further alleged that Telephone No. 553714 at the adjoining House No. 58, and No. 553709 at House No. 17, in the same locality were installed prior to him by skipping over his seniority in the list. In support of his case, the complainant/respondent has appended Part-6 of supplementary telephone directory (Annexure R-l), wherein it has been tabulated that for Manimajra Exchange, telephone connections upto Serial No. 1897 had been provided till 29.2.1986. However, he alleged that though being on No. 1727 on the waiting list, he was ignored. The respondent has further stated that his since several visits to the Office of the Department to get his phone connection released did not bring forth any result, he had to undergo a lot of harassment and he has prayed for the compensation of Rs. 17,000/- for harassment and Rs. 500/- towards the costs of litigation.

3. The opposite party, now appellant in their reply dated 17.4.1997 before the District Forum stated that the telephone connection to Mr. Swaran Singh Parwana could not provided earlier due to of his residential area being technically non-feasible for want of under-ground cable. However, in Paras 3 and 6 of the same (reply), it was also stated that the area has become feasible and the connection will be provided by 30.4.1997. The factum of non-feasibility of Shanti Nagar area till 20.2.1997 has also been deposed in the affidavit dated 23.4.1998 by Shri Brijinder Mohan, S.D.O. Phones, Manimajra.

4. During the proceedings in appeal before this Commission, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that since the respondent had merely deposited the application money and rendering of any service from the Department had not started even, the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. The Counsel for the appellant further argued that though stated in the rules, it is not possible to provide telephones within one week of the issuance of advice note, due to technical problems. In the case of respondent, the delay was of 11 months due to the area being technically non-feasible. The learned Counsel also argued that in the case of bulk release of connections, the advice notes are issued after verifying there feasibility of the area but since the instant case was of piece-meal connection and feasibility factor was not required to be p