J.S.CHAUHAN vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TELEPHONES) GURGAON

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Gurgaon dismissing the complaint on the threshold ground of being not maintainable because of the patently stale cause of action.

IN view of the above, it is unnecessary to delve in the facts and merits too deeply. It suffices to mention that the complainant subscriber had its original telephone No. 2078 which was changed to 20078 when an electronic exchange was installed in his town of Gurgaon. The grievance was that this number was not included in the directory and this had resulted in grave financial and professional loss which was somewhat exaggeratedly claimed at Rs. 70,000/-. In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondent department first took up the firm plea that the complaint was highly belated and barred by time and it was further alleged that the same was an utter abuse of the process of law. On merits it was pleaded that the last issue/addition of the telephone directory of Gurgaon was published in 1987 and any commission therein would be rectified in the next addition which was likely to materialize in the middle of 1993. It was stated that the omission was entirely beyond the control of the Department and his number can always be made available on the enquiry and the suggestion was that the omission has been occasioned by the installation of a new electronic exchange and consequential requisite code numbers, therefore.

The complainant chose to rest himself on the pleadings and did not even choose to put in even his own affidavit in support of his case or in elaboration thereof.

THE District Forum noticed that on the complainant''s own showing the alleged omission of his name was made in the year 1985-86 and he had chosen to remain silent for well-nigh seven years till the date of the complaint being filed on 6th of August, 1992. THE same was consequently, dismissed as stale and barred by time. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, the learned Counsel of the appellant had attempted to contend that the alleged omission gives rise to a continuous cause of action and no question of any limitation or a bar of delay would arise. The plea was that the appellant being an advocate, he was suffering professional loss owing to the absence of his name and number in the telephone directory.

WE are unable to find any merit in the aforesaid submission. What first meets the eye is the lack of any detailed pleadings on the material points. It has not even been remotely indicated as to the time when the number was changed and precisely the date when the omission occurred either in the original or supplementary directory issued. It would seem from the close identity of the original and the subsequent number that the change has been made only owing to the necessity of a new Code under the electronic exchange. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that at no stage, the appellant had made any grievance to the Department or chosen to put in any representation with regard thereto. Even before us the learned Counsel for the appellant, though pin-pointed could give not the least indication or cause as to why the appellant had not made any grievance on this score over so prolonged a period. Having slept over the alleged grievance for well-nigh seven years, the appellant cannot now be allowed to take up a stale issue particularly in the expeditious consumer jurisdiction. WE are firmly inclined to affirm the view taken by the District Forum. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. But taking into condiseration the appellant''s consumer status, we do not burden him with any costs. Appeal dismissed.