CHANDRA PRAKASH vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT

THE complainant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 5.12.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 520/89 by which the complaint was dismissed. THE complainant submitted a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating that he applied for telephone connection on 3.5.1975 and deposited the requisite fee for it with the opposite party. His registration No. was 011260. Until the filing of the complaint on 5.9.1989, it was alleged that a number of reminders were given to the opposite party, the details of which have been mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. It was prayed that the opposite party may be directed to release the telephone connection in favour of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by him. THE complainant with the complaint submitted Photostat copy of the receipt of the application and copies of the letters. THE opposite party resisted the complaint by filing the version of the case. It admitted the allegation that the complainant had applied for telephone connection on 3.5.1975. He was allotted S.No. 7658 in the waiting list. According to the opposite party, the complainant could not be given connection as he did not deposit Rs. 1,000/- as advance money towards the connection fee as subsequently it was increased. THE complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint. Photostat copies of the relevant Rules were also submitted. On behalf of the opposite party extract from the register relating to the complainant showing that notice No. 4048 dated 27.9.1975 was issued to him asking him to deposit Rs. 1,000/-within the time mentioned therein. He failed to deposit the amount and, therefore, his allotted No. 7658 was cancelled. THE District Forum heard the arguments and, thereafter, dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal as aforesaid.

WE heard Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. U.D. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent and carefully considered the documents submitted by the parties and also the order under appeal. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the complainant-appellant was not given a registered notice by the Telephone Department for depositing Rs. 1,000/-as such a notice was contemplated by Rule 6 of the TELEGRAPH RULES, 1951 ("the Rules" here in after). Rule 6 of the Rules is as under : "6. Termination of Registration : A registered applicant may terminate his registration any time before the sanction of the telephone. Termination of registration may also be done by the Divisional Engineer in the following cases : - (a) If the application is incomplete in any essential respect or the applicant cannot be traced or identified. (b) If the applicant does not comply with the requirements of the rules of the Department regarding verification of bonafides or is not found to be bonafide. (c) If the applicant is not ready to take the connection within 3 months from the date of sanction. A registered notice shall be served on the applicant at the address in India registered by him with the Department, before the telephone registration is terminated. On termination the amounts at his credit will be refundable as per prescribed rules and the liability of the Department to pay interest on deposit will also cease from the date of termination or date of sanction of connection whichever is earlier."

Mr. Verma also invited our attention to Section 3 A which deals with deposit alongwith applications for connection under OYT Scheme and in special categories. Clause 1(a) provides that every application for telephone connection shall be accompanied with the amount of deposit of specified sum as shown in the Table. Clauses 2(a) and (b) have also been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The complainant submitted the application for registration on 3.5.1975. His name was registered on 6.5.1975. Notice No. 4048 dated 27.9.1975 was issued on 27.9.1975. Under Clause 2(1) he was required to pay Rs. 1,000/-within a period of three months from the date of the issue of the notice. The amount was not deposited by him as according to him notice was not received and the opposite party did not send the registered notice. The District Forum after considering Rule 6 of the Rules was of the opinion that a registered notice is required in respect of the three cases mentioned in the rule itself and the notice which was issued by the opposite party on 29.7.1975 for deposit Rs. 1,000/- with the opposite party is not covered by any of the three cases.

There is nothing on the record to doubt the extract of the register which has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party. This shows that the complainant was given notice bearing No. 4048 dated 27.9.197 5 and he did not deposit the requisite amount within the period of three months and so his registration was cancelled. In other words the complainant failed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- even after the issue of the notice within the time mentioned therein. No help can be taken by the appellant of Clauses 2(a) and (b).

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant pressed that after the cancellation of the application, refund of Rs. 10/- was not made in him. This shows that his registration was not cancelled. Consequences of the cancellation of the registration flows from non-deposit of the amount Rs. 1,000/- within three months from the date of the issue of the notice. Admittedly the complainant did not deposit the amount within three months from the date of the issue of the notice and so the registration was cancelled. For failure to return the amount, it cannot be assumed that registration was not cancelled. No inference can be drawn that the registration was not cancelled or it was otherwise invalid. We agree with the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur on 5.12.1990 and affirm it. There is no merit in this appeal. It consequently fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.