GAUTAM RASIKLAL CHUDGAR vs Union of India

NOBODY was present on behalf of the complainant on 17.11.92 and 4.12.92. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 18.1.93. Neither the complainant nor his advocate was present and, therefore, in order to give one more chance the complaint was adjourned to 8.2.93. Today also neither the complainant nor his advocate is present and, therefore, we are deciding the complaint on merits since the written statement has been filed and-documents have been produced by the parties. The short facts of the complaint are as under:

THE complainant is running an SSI unit and according to his allegation he is entitled to telephone connection in the special category. THE Telephone Department had also informed him that he will be getting the connection in the special category but according o him inspire of several efforts for years he could not get the telephone. According to the complainant he had made an application for telephone on 30.5.1986 and deposited Rs. 1,000/- also. But till this date telephone has not been given to him and, therefore, he has suffered the damages and has claimed damages of Rs. 8,00,000/- for loss of his business and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental shock and sufferings. The Telephone Department has filed a written statement and Mr. Bhagat, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Department draws our attention to para 9 thereof wherein the Department has stated that the demand note was issued to the complainant on 10.6.88 for payment and in response to that the complainant has made an application dated 1.7.88 asking for the change of address from the original address which was also granted and the telephone was installed under number 370013 at the new address on 21.7.88 and thereafter the telephone has functioned for two years. Thereafter the complainant gave another application making false allegation and requesting the Department to shift the telephone to his present address and thereafter to another address and so on with the result the telephone was not shifted to any place.

The Department has also produced the letters of the complainant and has also sent this written statement to the complainant by registered post to which no rejoinder or any other reply has been filed.

NOW, if we consider the complaint on the averment made by the complainant that the Department has not granted him the telephone, then the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has not become the consumer of the Telephone Department. Therefore, the question of any compensation or damages does not arise since there is no deficiency in service. If the telephone has been given to the complainant at this changed address then also the question of damages will not arise as the telephone has been installed at the place which was shown by the complainant in his application for change of address. We are also of the opinion that the claim is exorbitant, inflated and has been filed before us only with a view to bring the complaint within our jurisdiction. It is high time such exorbitant and inflated claims for damages should be discouraged. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant should be saddled with cost. The complainant has neither remained present nor filed any evidence regarding damages except his complaint on affidavit. If the say of the Department is accepted, he will be also guilty of material suppression of facts. In any view of the matter since we are dismissing the matter on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the say of the. ORDER The complaint is dismissed with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs. 300/-. Complaint dismissed with costs.