GENERAL MANAGER TELE- COMMUNICATIONS Vs. G PADMAJA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petty matter in which the opposite parties, i. e. Telecom Department of Government of India, thinks that it would fight because Rs.500/- compensation and Rs.200/-costs were awarded; They themselves admitted that work order was issued in June, 1998 but it was not executed for several months. The Authorities concerned shall do well to remember that filing of appeals in petty matters like this would cost the State several times more than the compensation awarded. They should prefer appeals only in cases where some important principle is involved but not in a case like this where after giving the work order in 6/98, the execution of the work was not done for more than eight months which, on the face of it, is inexcusable. The District Forum held as follows : "there appear no justification for not executing the work- order for 6 months after 6/98. It is deficiency of service. The prayer for refund of charges collected is not pressed. Hence we direct the opposite party to instal the telephone old No.3351516 at 7-1-211/ 21/1 as mentioned in the letter dated 4.4.1998 of complainant within one month and pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs.200/-. "

(2.) A copy of the complaint in the CD. has been filed alongwith the appeal papers. The complainant stated in her complaint that she was running an STD/pco booth in premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-231 at Panjagutta in Hyderabad and the telephone installed in the said premises was bearing No.3351516. The landlord of the said premises required the complainant to vacate the same as it was being demolished and consequently she shifted to premises bearing Municipal No.7-1- 211/21/1 on Dharam Karan Road at Ameerpet in Hyderabad and immediately applied to the appellants under application dated 24.7.1997 for shifting of the telephone to the new premises. She also furnished Bank guarantee for Rs.40,000/- on 10.10.1997 on being so required by the appellants. Thereafter the appellants issued work order dated 28.1.1998 and a letter dated 23.1998. But as the new address was not correctly mentioned by her, that was cancelled, and new work order dated 29.6.1998 was issued to the complainant on her furnishing the correct address for shifting her telephone. The complainant was also asked to pay bills amounting to Rs.8,432/- for the period December, 1997 to April, 1998 even though the telephone was not functioning and was disconnected for the purpose of shifting. She paid all the bills on 3.6.1998. However, the telephone was not installed in the new premises taken by her on lease paying a rent of Rs.1,500/- and electricity charges of Rs.300/-. It was under those circumstances that she approached the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to instal the telephone in the new premises and also to direct the opposite parties to refund the five bills collected by them for the period from December, 1997 to April, 1998 totalling to Rs.8,432/- and also to pay compensation and costs, etc. In the complaint she made certain allegations that some of the officers of the Telecom Department sought illegal payments from her for installing the telephone in her new premises. The order of the District Forum shows that the appellants were represented by Mr. A. Raghavaiah. The District Forum only directed installation of the telephone in her new premises apart from awarding compensation of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs.200/- holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

(3.) In the grounds of appeal it is contended by the appellants that the complainant was running STD/pco booth and, therefore, she was not a consumer as that expression is defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short ). In support of this contention reference was made to the decisions of the National Commission in The General Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. V/s. R. Kannan, 1994 1 CPJ 14, and Union of India and Ors. V/s. Ramesh Kumar,1995 3 CPJ 67 (NC), and to the decision of this Commission in Takafful Gulraza, Hyderabad V/s. General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom Department, F. A. No.778/1996, dated 25.9.1996 (A. P. State Commission ). A copy of this Commission's decision has been filed alongwith the appeal papers. In R. Kannan's case , the National Commission held that a franchise holder was only a licensee of the grantor of the franchise for operating STD/pco and collecting the call charges on behalf of the franchiser and that the franchiser holder performed two functions : establishing and running a public call office, and collecting the call charges on behalf of the department. In that context the National Commission held that it was erroneous to hold that the franchise holder, who was maintaining and running an STD/ PCO, was a consumer vis-a-vis the Telecom Department. In that case the question was whether the franchise holder could seek directions from the Tribunals under the Act for payment of the commission of Rs.83,991.20 claimed by him as due from the Telecom Department. It was in that context that the National Commission held that the franchise holder was not a consumer under the Act.