SULOCHANA KAUR vs Union of India

THIS is a petition by a registered medical practitioner, who is also working as an Assistant Professor of the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. The petitioner applied for a telephone connection at her residence on 10th September, 1987 which was duly registered vide No. GH/Spl/P. No. 1908 vide Annexure-A to the petition. A demand note dated 2.9.87 was also received by the petitioner and the said demand note is at Annexure-''B'' to the petition. The amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) as per demand note was paid on 10.9.87. It has been stated, which is not disputed by the opposite parties, that the Registration No. of the petitioner was GH/Spl/P No. 1908 dated 10-9-87. Thereafter, it is alleged by the petitioner, that after obtaining feasibility report release order (advice note) was issued but it was not received by her. In para 6 of the petition, it is specifically averred that this advice note bearing No. 09/NPC/732 was issued on 30-1-1991, which has not been disputed in the objection filed on behalf of the opposite parties. A statement has been made that two persons from the department met the petitioner at her residence and informed her that her connection would be released within two days only on payment of bribe of Rs. 2,000/-. Of course this statement in paragraph 9 has been denied in the objection and we need not enter into this aspect of the matter.

AS the telephone was not connected, this Commission was approached by filing the present petition. This petition was filed on 12.9.92 before this Commission and, thereafter, the telephone connection was given, which fact was informed to this Commission as recorded in the order dated 31.10.92. According to the representative of the complainant, the telephone was connected on 4.11.92. In the objection filed on behalf of the department, it has been stated in paragraph 7 that for expediting telephone connection release orders are issued before obtaining technical feasibility report and in this case also it was so done. It has also been stated that after the advice note was issued the department made arrangement to install the telephone and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Telephones also tried to give connection but it was found that the house of the petitioner is situated at a hilly place and therefore it was difficult to erect post for drawing telephone line as underground cable was not available in that area. According to opposite parties, after receiving the order of this Commission dated 12.9.92, the Commercial Section of the Department was directed to give connection. According to the opposite parties, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer tried his best to install the telephone and after erecting about 22 spans and spending a huge amount of money, the telephone was installed on 2.11.92.

It may be stated that written statement has been filed only today thereby depriving the petitioner from filing reply to the said written statement.

HEARD Mr. Charu Mahanta, representative of the complainant and Mr. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. As the telephone has already been connected, the only question that remains for our consideration is whether any compensation may be awarded for delay in giving new telephone connection. It may be stated mat in the petition, the petitioner has claimed compensation @ Rs. 500/- per day from 31st January, 1991 till the date of installation of the telephone. We may state here that to justify the claim of Rs. 500/- per day nothing has been placed on record. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any compensation on this score. In our considered view, the petitioner is entitled to get damages only for wrongful detention of her amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). This wrongful detention of the amount has been caused due to delay-inaction of the department, inasmuch as, the telephone has not been provided as per departmental rules. In this connection, we may refer to Chapter -I of the Telephone Rules as compiled by Muttu Swami. From the said book, which is being used both at the Bar and by the Commission, we find that before issuing advice note, technical feasibility report has to be obtained. According to relevant provisions, this feasibility report has to be verified by an official not lower in rank of a Junior Engineer and such a report has to be furnished by the field staff within seven days. After getting the feasibility report, it shall have to be entered in the feasibility register to be maintained exchange wise in respect of all connections. This register is supposed to be examined by the Inspecting Officer. We are sorry to say that though in the objection it has been stated that the technical feasibility report was obtained subsequently, no document has been produced particularly the said register. In view of non-production of this register by applying the spirit of the Evidence Act we may presume that had this register been produced it would have gone against the department. According to the said rule, normally the installation of telephones should take place within seven days. As stated earlier advice note was issued on 30.1.91 and giving maximum benefit to the department, we allow 15 days more time in addition to seven days for giving the new telephone connection. Therefore, the cut-off date for the purpose of calculating interest would be 22.2.1991 and the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) from that date till 3.11.1992. The department need not pay this interest in cash and the amount of interest shall be adjusted against future bills in connection with the telephone given to the petitioner, viz., Telephone No. Gauhati 43267. The interest shall be calculated on Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) during the above period and the petitioner shall be informed within one month from today.

WITH the above directions, the petition is disposed of No costs. Complaint disposed without costs.