Per – Hon’ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/01/1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.208 of 1995, Mrs. Meenakshi Patankar Vs. The General Manager, Telecom District Kalyan. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
[2] Respondent/original Complainant – Smt. Meenakshi Patankar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) had applied for a telephone connection under the ‘Tatkal’ scheme of the Appellant/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘telecom service provider’ for the sake of brevity). Accordingly, she paid an amount of `1,000/- for the same. On receiving a demand for payment of an amount of `29,000/- she paid the same on 21/09/1994. The Complainant alleged that as per the ‘Tatkal’ scheme, the telephone connection should have been installed within a period of fifteen days. However, the telecom service provider installed the connection on 12/10/1994. Complainant further alleged that after installation of the instrument, the connection used to be out of order. Similarly, she was not receiving the telephone bills regularly. Despite of complaints from time to time, there was no response from the service provider. According to the Complainant, she is an old lady aged 80 years and is suffering from many ailments and she is practically bed-ridden and to keep in contact with her relatives she had taken the telephone connection. Considering all these things as deficiency in service on the part of the telecom service provider, she approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint.
[3] Original Opponent/telecom service provider contested the complaint by filing its written version through registered post with acknowledgement due. After filing the written version, the service provider remained absent before the District Forum though reasonable opportunity was given. Hence, the District Forum directed the Complainant to file her evidence on affidavit and serve a copy thereof to the service provider. Accordingly, the Complainant served the service provider with a copy of her evidence on affidavit alongwith her reply to the written version filed by the service provider. However, even thereafter, the service provider neither appeared before the District Forum nor filed any evidence on affidavit. Hence, the District Forum proceeded in absence of the service provider.
[4] The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the service provider, evidence filed by the Complainant on affidavit and the reply filed by the Complainant to the written version of the ‘service provider’, came to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the telecom service provider and partly allowed the complaint directing the Opponent/service provider to pay to the Complainant an amount of `10,000/- by way of damages besides costs of `2,000/- within a period of two months and failing which the amount of damages shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. Aggrieved by the said order, the Opponent/service provider has preferred this appeal.
[5] Respondent was duly served through paper publication. However, the Respondent chose to remain absent. We heard Adv. K. M. Alshi on behalf of the Appellant/service provider.
[6] Admittedly, the Respondent/Complainant is an old lady aged 80 years and she is suffering from many ailments and thereby has become bedridden. To keep in contact with her relatives, the Complainant applied for a telephone connection under the ‘Tatkal’ scheme of the service provider. As per the scheme, a ‘Tatkal’ connection is to be installed within a period of fifteen days from the date of application. However, in the present case, it was not installed within the stipulated period of fifteen days. Thus, on this count alone, looking to the condition of the Complainant, there is patent deficiency in service on the part of the service provider.
[7] Even after installation of the telephone connection, for most of the time, the connection was not functioning properly. It is also on record that the Complainant was not receiving the telephone bills regularly. Concerned authorities of the ‘telecom service provider’ did not bother to look into the grievance of an old lady despite of the fact that she visited the Chief Commercial Officer of the ‘service provider’. Not only this, but the service provider also failed to appear before the District Forum and file their evidence on affidavit. This shows the negligent, careless and scrupulous attitude on the part of the ‘service provider’.
[8] Learned Advocate for the Appellant/service provider tried to draw our attention to the decision of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court has observed that as per the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred from entertaining such types of complaints. However, this position has been already clarified by a Full Bench decision passed by this Commission on 06/11/2012 in First Appeal No.1743 of 2003, General Manager (Leased Circuit), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sandeep Dattatraya Uddhao, wherein it is held that the Consumer Fora are very well vested with the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide such types of complaints.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the appeal and it is devoid of merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 21st October, 2013
