CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1995) 06 NCDRC CK 0008

S.P. MOHANTY vs BHASKER CH.PATTNAIK

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 26 June 1995 · Citation: 1995 3 CPJ 544 : 1996 1 CPC 241

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.P.Chowdhri , S.Brar , Desh Bandhu J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

THE appellant is an employee of the State of Bihar. He was allowed to stay in the Orissa Bhawan, New Delhi from 5.4.93 to 12.7.93 in connection with his treatment in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. During his stay he asked the telephone operator working in the Orissa Bhawan to send 11 phonograms on 16.6.93. THEse were however returned by the operator on 17.6.93 without communication. THE appellant felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the telephone operator and approached District Forum-II for compensation amounting to "Rs, 30,000/- on the ground of deficiency in service.

2.

BY order dated 31.1.95, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the averment did not disclose deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mohanty, Authorised Agent of the Appellant.

3.

THE plea of the opposite party before the District Forum was that the telephone facility was available in Orissa Bhawan only for local calls. THE complainant owed Rs. 2,230/- on account of use of telephone which he had not paid and the phonograms could not be given as there was great pressure of work with the operator. The order of the District Forum further shows that whereas the pleas of the opposite party were supported by affidavit of Sh. B.N. Dass, Under Secretary, the averments made by the complainant were not supported by an affidavit. In order to constitute deficiency in service, it was necessary to show that the Orissa Bhawan undertook the service of sending of phonograms. Unless such service was agreed to be provided, there could be no grievance on the ground that phonograms were not sent. The categorical stand in the written statement was that the facility of telephone was made available only for local calls which would by necessary implication exclude the additional service of sending phonograms. We find no infirmity in the order of District Forum and accordingly dismiss the appeal in limine. Both the parties be informed. Appeal dismissed.