K L SINGHAL Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, abovenamed, has filed the present appeal against order of District Forum-IV, dated 14.7.1997, in Complaint Case No.334/96 entitled Shri K. L. Singhal V/s. M. T. N. L.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the District Forum, averring therein that the telephone No.516849 had been installed at his old residence at 11, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 055, since 1968. The said telephone number was changed to 522827 sometime in 1985. In November, 1991, the Idgah Exchange was converted into an electronic exchange and thereafter the telephone number of the appellant was again changed to 7524927. The said number after working for the appellant for four days only was further changed to 7524848 on 29.1.1992. Thereafter sometime in the last week of January, 1992, the appelalnt shifted his residence to 129, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and requested for transfer of the telephone from his old residence to his new residence, vide letter dated 9.3.1992. However, the respondent/mtnl could shift the appellant's telephone to his new residence only in October, 1994. In the new telephone directory published by the respondent in 1994, the name and address of the appellant was omitted. It is the casse of the appellant that the respondent/m. T. N. L. intentionally and deliberately removed his name and address from the said telephone directory with a view to take revenge from the appellant for litigating against the respondent/mtnl, in another related matter, in which the appellant had accused the officials of the respondent/mtnl of having filed false affidavits and also for excess billing. Therefore, in the prayer clause of his complaint, the appellant had prayed for directions to the respondent to ensure that his name is published in the subsequent Supplementary Directory or regular Directory and also to pay him compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) alongwith costs of the proceedings.

(3.) The respondent in its written version/reply filed before the District Forum stated that the name and address of the appellant could not be mentioned in the issue of 1994 Telephone Directory, on account of the fact that the same was revised upto 1.4.1994 only, whereas the telephone of the appellant was shifted to his new residence only in October, 1994, and as such the said omission was neither intentional nor deliberate, as alleged by the appellant. It was further stated by the respondent that according to Rule 457 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, no claim can be entertained on account of any omission of any entry or error in the Telephone Directory and had also relied upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Telephone District Manager, Hissar V/s. Shri Dev Raj and Ors., 1994 1 CPJ 23.