SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009(1) CPR 529
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Subash Mahtab, President-in-charge and Mrs. Basanti Devi, Member
SDO (Telephone), Office of the
T.D.E., Balasore —Appellant
versus
Kali Charan Behera —Respondent
C.D. Appeal No. 523 of 1999
Decided on 12.5.2008

Advocates:
Case Referred:
1. III (9993) CPJ 1391 (Para 3)

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant: M/s. A.K. Bose and Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.


Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—Non-providing of Telephone connection—Complainant applied for Telephone connection in 1996 and deposited fee of Rs. 1,000/- on 13.4.1996—Connection was installed on 19.3.1999 during pendency of complaint before District Forum—Defence plea was that due to existence of Railway level crossing and acute shortage of line material to draw overhead line, there was delay—District Forum allowed complaint holding deficiency in service when demand note had been issued in 1996, connection should have been provided, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost Rs. 500/- —Appeal—Appellant had failed to prove non-feasibility and was found to have provided two new connection in two other persons—No reason to interfere. (Para 5)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

Basanti Devi, Member—The sole opposite party in C.D. Case No.117 of 1998 has filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 24.6.1998 of the District Forum, Balasore directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500 to the complainant for using deficiency in service to him.

2. Complainant/respondent filed the C.D. Case No.117 of 1998 against the opposite party praying to direct opposite party to install the telephone in his premises immediately and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation Rs. 500 for causing deficiency in service to him by not providing the Telephone. According to the complainant, he having applied to the Telecom Department to supply him telephone facility to his residence situated at Routpada, he deposited registration fee of Rs. 1,000 on 13.4.1996 as per the advice note of the opposite party. During said period, two persons namely Pramod Mishra and Pravakar Senapati of village Routpada had applied for new telephone connections and deposited fees for connection. New telephone connections though were given to them in the month of November 1997, yet complainant was not provided with telephone connection. Therefore, opposite party has caused deficiency in service to him. On the other hand, the opposite party states as per his written version that as the area of complainant is not technically feasible since no cable work can be made due to existence of Railway level crossing and since there was acute shortage of line material to draw over-head line, it was not possible to supply him new telephone line. However, telephone line can be supplied at earliest possible time and in case complainant would apply to get back said amount of Rs.1,000 the same can be refunded to him.

3. On 27.5.1999, the day the C.D. case was heard, opposite party had filed a petition stating therein that anew telephone connection bearing No. RPS-54662 has already been installed in the premises of the complainant on 19.3.1999 after receipt of required store material from the store depot. Thus the learned G.P. submitted to dismiss the C.D. case as there is already supply of new telephone connection. But the District Forum held that by this opposite party has not shown any favour to the complainant who already suffered due to the fault and negligence of the opposite party and directed opposite party as aforesaid vide its impugned orders dated 24.6.1999. The District Forum took a view that without obtaining technical feasibility report from his field staff, the opposite party should not have issued demand note dated 26.3.1996 asking complainant to deposit registration fee Rs. 1,000 before 15.4.1996. In this respect, District Forum relied upon decision of the State C.D.R. Commission, Assam at Guwahati, reported in III (1993) CPJ 1391. At the same time, District Forum observed that opposite party has discriminated the complainant unreasonably though opposite party has given in November 1997 new telephone connections to Pramod Mishra and Prabhakar Senapati of the village of complainant the allegation of the complainant in this respect having not been denied in the written version or disproved adducing evidence. In view of these, the District Forum found opposite party to have caused deficiency in service to the complainant.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant as none appeared for respondent. Perused the materials on record.

5. This order of the District Forum has been challenged in this appeal by the opposite party to the effect that the District Forum did not take into consideration the practical difficulty in providing new telephone line to the complainant due to non-availability of store material to draw overhead line and for the level-crossing through which there cannot be cable connection.

6. The aforesaid defence taken for non-feasibility of giving new telephone line to the complainant have not been established by the opposite party/appellant in any manner. If appellant could provide two new tel





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top