APPELLANT

TATA TELE SERVICES LTD.

Videsh Sanchar Bhawan

1/18, C.I.T., Scheme – VII M

P.S. Ultadanga

Kolkata-700 054.

RESPONDENT

Mr. A.J.Akram

Proprietor M/s. A.J.Auto Circle

8, A.J.C.Bose Road

P.S. Shakespeare Sarani

Kolkata-700 017.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. F.Haque, Ld. Advocate


: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dt. 3.8.09 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/unit-II/C.C.No. 139 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest against the OP thereby directing the OP to restore the complainant’s telephone no. 033-6452 4696 within 15 days along with a direction for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-.

The complainant/Respondent’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant after observing all the formalities and payment of requisite charges obtained telephone connection from the OP/TATA TELESERVICES LTD. and was enjoying the same for some time and in the process the complainant paid usual monthly charges as per bills raised by the OP. Thereafter on 3.3.07 the complainant finding his telephone to be dead the complainant lodged several complaints to the OP but with no avail. Ultimately the complainant served Lawyer’s notice upon the OP. But inspite of that there was no positive response from the OP and hence, the petition of complaint was filed for proper redessal.

The OP contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that there was no deficiency at the instance of the OP. Due to some technical snags in the tele-system the money deposited by the complainant was not reflected, for which the connection was disconnected. The OP also challenged the maintainability of the petition of complaint on the ground that the complainant used the tele-service facilities for commercial purpose which was not meant for that and as such, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The Ld. Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the OP was not successful to substantiate the plea raised by it and the same was not acceptable. On the other hand, the complainant was quite successful in substantiating his case by producing cogent and reliable materials and accordingly the Ld. Forum disposed of the case in favour of the complainant in the manner as discussed above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the OP that though the impugned judgement was not a happy one inasmuch as the Ld. Forum did not consider the fact that the complainant was using the tele-service facilities for commercial purpose, but even then as a good gesture the OP was ready and willing to give fresh connection to the complainant but under no circumstances it would be possible to restore the line in the telephone number which was previously allowed to the complainant prior to disconnection. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that from the materials on record it has become quite evident that the OP was not on the proper side of the law. There is no denial of the fact that the OP committed mischief and/or was deficient in service and necessary orders be passed accordingly.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and having considered the facts and circumstances and the nature of dispute involved we are of considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned judgement is modified to the extent that the OP/Appellant be directed to restore the connection in favour of the complainant on the complainant’s application for a new connection, for which no separate charges would have to be paid at the instance of the complainant. Obviously question of granting the same telephone number in favour of the complainant does not arise at all. The other portion of the impugned judgement remains unaltered. In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest in part without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement is modified to the extent that on proper application to be filed at the instance of the complainant the OP will give fresh connection to the complainant, for which the complainant will not have to deposit any other charges. It is also to be noted that question of allotting the same telephone number as existed prior to disconnection does not arise in case of fresh connection. The other portion of the impugned judgement remains unaltered.