Two-day flower show inaugurated 
Our Correspondent

Ludhiana, February 25
Dr Kirpal Singh Aulakh, Vice-Chancellor, Punjab Agricultural University, today inaugurated the two-day Annual Flower Show-cum-Competition organised by the Department of Floriculture and Landscaping.

Addressing the gathering, Dr Aulakh complimented the department for making this flower show an annual feature and expressed his hope that it would go a long way in not only developing the skills in production and arrangement of flowers, but also in developing positive outlook towards life.

Dr Malwinder Singh Tiwana, Dean, College of Agriculture, PAU, while welcoming the chief guest, said the Department of Floriculture and Landscaping had set an example by beautifying the PAU campus involving the removing of overgrowth and developing plans for new plantation without any substantial additional resources. He said the other institutions and individuals must learn a lesson from this effort of the department.

Dr Ramesh Kumar, Head, Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, PAU, revealed that a large number of entries were received for the show-cum-competition from various organisation, like Municipal Corporations, Directorate of Horticulture, Punjab, local educational institutions and amateur flower growers. Nurserymen, florists, seed producers and pesticide companies are also participating in the show by demonstrating their products and inputs required for flower cultivation. 

BSNL asked to compensate for poor service
Our Correspondent

Ludhiana, February 25
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation on account of deficiency in services to Mr Geeraj Singh, a resident of Ranjit Nagar. The forum has also directed the BSNL to provide a telephone connection to the consumer within three months of receipt of the order. The forum has further directed the respondent to pay Rs 500 as cost of litigation to the consumer.

According to the complaint, the consumer had applied for a telephone connection on March 3, 2000 and deposited Rs 3,000. The representative of the complainant, Mr S.S. Sarna, said that the consumer had not been provided the telephone connection till the filing of this complaint. He further stated that Ms Chander Kanta, a resident of Partap Colony, had been provided a telephone connection (604428) while she had applied about four months after the consumer.

Mr Sarna said, ‘‘Ms Chander Kanta lives quite near to the consumer’s house and Ranjit Nagar, Harjap Colony and Partap Colony fall under the same pillar ,’’. He said that BSNL should be asked to provide a waiting list. He alleged that the consumer had suffered metal torture and agony due to deficient services of BSNL. It was demanded from the forum that BSNL should be directed to install a new telephone connection and to pay Rs 10,000 on account of compensation and costs.

The BSNL pleaded that the officials were not aware of the distance between the house of complainant and Ms Chander Kanta. The respondent maintained that the complainant had not given the name of the main area like Jamalpur or Mundian and he had simply mentioned the address as Street No 1, Ranjit Nagar, Hartap Colony.

The respondent clarified that the address mentioned by the complainant in the application form was incomplete. However, it was admitted that Ranjit Nagar, Harjap Colony and Partap Colony were provided services from the same pillar. It was also admitted the complainant had applied for the telephone connection on March 3, 2000, and deposited Rs 3,000. But it was denied that the list had been jumped. The respondent stated that there was no deficiency in services and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The forum observed that it was an admitted fact that the consumer had applied for a new telephone connection on March 3, 2000, and deposited Rs 3,000. The forum further observed that the Ms chander Kanta had applied for a telephone connection on August 14, 2000, and as such the consumer had applied before her who had been provided telephone by jumping the list.

The forum stated, ‘‘It is a case of jumping seniority. Moreover, the consumer has not been still provided telephone on the ground that the area is TNF,’’. The forum held that there was a clear deficiency in services and the consumer had suffered due to deficient services.