
Telecom Dept
penalised
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, July 27
While disposing of two complaints on behalf of a
consumer, the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II
has penalised the Telecom department for causing delay in
releasing a connection and for shifting of the telephone.
In the first complaint,
Mr O.P. Goyal, who retired as Additional District and
Sessions Judge on May 31, 1996 from High Court had
applied for a new telephone connection under the Non-OYT
SS category on February 7, 1996 by depositing Rs 2000. As
per the rules of the department, the telephone should
have been released to him forthwith but after raising
certain frivolous objections, the Telecom
Department declined his request on September 3, 1996. The
complainant was forced to issue a legal notice on
November 11, 1996 when the representations made by him to
get the telephone sanctioned proved ineffective.
Subsequently his name
was included in the waiting list category, but no advice
note was issued for the installation of the telephone. He
has further averred that he had applied for a change of
address for the installation of the telephone and
deposited Rs 1000 as fee on January 11, 1997. It was on
April 21, 1997 that the complainant had received an
anti-dated letter wherein his frequent change of address
was accepted. The telephone was finally installed in the
end of April 1997. Since he was deprived of the use of a
telephone for a period of almost 11 months, he claimed
damages to the tune of Rs 11,000.
In a reply to this
complaint, the Telecom Department admitted that the
waiting list number was allotted to the complainant but
following the submission of documents, the advice note
dated December 19, 1996 was issued and the telephone was
installed at his residence in Sector 7 on May 1, 1997.
In the second complaint,
Mr Goyal stated that he had applied for shifting of the
installed telephone to Panchkula on September 29, 1997,
but no action was taken despite repeated reminders.
The complainant later
submitted the application on the prescribed proforma on
October 22, 1997. However, the department vide another
letter dated November 21, 1997, asked the complainant to
submit the original documents and attested copies of the
latest bills. The telephone was finally installed on
December 16, 1997.
He further stated that
he had not received the two bills dated September 1,
1997, and November 1, 1997, for Rs 373 and Rs 299.
Therefore, he deposited the amount only when he was
informed by the department that the telephone was
disconnected for the non-payment of pending dues. He paid
the bills the next day not sent to him and only when he
received call from the telecom department that the
telephone was disconnected for the non-payment of
non-pending dues , the complainant was given the copies
of the bill when he asked for it. He paid the bills the
next day and prayed refund of the amount illegally
charged. He further demanded refund of the rent and the
surcharge for the delayed period and further compensation
of Rs 25,000.
In the reply to this
complaint, the department contended that the advice note
was issued after receiving the original documents as per
the rule.
As regards the first
complaint, the Forum bench comprising its President, Mr
R.P. Bajaj and members Mr H.S. Walia and Mrs Kamlesh
Gupta observed that the complainant was entitled to the
benefit of Non-OYT SS category as per the rules of the
department. The delay caused by the department in placing
the complainant under this category amounted to
deficiency in service on part of the department. The
department further delayed the installation of the
telephone by four months for which no explanation has
been given.
The forum further
observed that the complainant was wrongly deprived of the
telephone connection for a period of 11months from June
1996 to April 1997. It held that the complainant retired
as a senior judicial officer and the telephone connection
was essential for him the and denial of that facility by
the department caused mental and physical harassment and
also financial loss. It assessed the compensation at the
rate of Rs 1000 per month to be fair and reasonable.
Regarding the second
complaint, the forum observed that the delay in shifting
the telephone by four months amounted to deficiency in
service on the part of the department.
During the pendency of
the complaint, the department conceded the refund of the
rental to the complainant. The forum held that a
compensation of Rs 3000 would meet the ends of justice in
the second case.
Accordingly, both
complaints were allowed with consolidated costs of Rs
1100 and the department was also directed to pay Rs
14,000 as total compensation and refund the rentals for
the period from September 29, 1997 to December 15, 1997.
Refrigerator
repaired
A defective refrigerator
manufactured by Godrej- GE appliances has been repaired,
following a complaint by the owner before the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-I.
Mrs Kiran Aggarwal had
filed a complaint in which she alleged that several
defects had occurred in the refrigerator manufactured by
Godrej.
The forum bench,
comprising its president, Mr H.C. Modi and member Dr R.K.
Behl, issued a notice to the manufacturer and dealer.
They stated that the refrigerator of the complainant had
been set right by replacing some defective parts and that
it was now working up to the partys satisfaction.
The forum, therefore,
disposed of the complaint on account of the grievance of
the complainant having been redressed. However, they
directed the manufacturer and dealer to attend to the
complaint with regard to the functioning of the
refrigerator.
|