None appears for both sides.

2.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.    The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant has deposited Rs.500/- towards registration fees on 23.2.2005 against Demand Note dated 14.2.2005 issued by the OPs for new connection of telephone for the complainant. It is alleged inter alia that on 23.9.2005 after lapse of seven months the S.D.O., Telephone, Bolangir transferred the waiting list of new connection to the S.D.O., Telephone, Sonepur as it was under the Sonepur jurisdiction. In spite of request of the complainant no connection could be given to him. So finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version admitting about facts alleging in the complaint. According to the OPs the S.D.O., Telephone, Sonepur has not got any feasibility report from the approved contractor and the complainant was requested to apply for refund of the registration charges with interest. As there is no feasibility report, they could not release the new connection to the complainant.

6.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum pleased the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Therefore it is ordered that the OPs are directed to connect the line forthwith. They   are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- which also includes the cost of litigation within two months from the date of this order. Complaint is partly allowed.”

7.      It is alleged in the appeal memo that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by imposing compensation payable by the present appellants without understanding the plight of the case. Learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Learned District Forum should not have imposed compensation when the OPs  are ready to return the money with interest due to the fault of the contractor to submit the feasibility report. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the appeal memo and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for new connection. It is not in dispute that complainant deposited Rs.500/- towards registration fee. It is also admitted that the matter was transferred to the S.D.O., Telephone, Sonepur. It is admitted by the OPs that connection was not given due to non-submission of feasibility report. However, learned District Forum only took exception to the fact that the telephone connection was not given for more than one year and the same is deficiency in service. When the OPs have admitted to return the money with interest, hardly lies any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Since the learned District Forum has not considered this aspect, the impugned order is illegal and improper and hence the same is set aside.

Appeal is allowed. No cost. However, the new connection should be given to the complainant as per procedure if not given in the meantime on priority basis.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply the copy of this order to both sides including the SDO, Telephone, Sonepur and the SDO, Telephone, Bolangir.