AREA MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATION Vs. N P MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Telephone Department against the order of the District Forum, Kachchh at Bhuj. The respondent is an original complainant who is subscriber of telephone No.22930 and 86270 at Adipur. According to the complainant the telephone No.86270 installed at his residence is not giving proper services. According to the complainant the telephone services catered by the appellant at Adipur is very defective inasmuch as at the time when the complaint was filed it was working one sided i. e. the subscriber can telephone from his telephone but he will not be able to receive it from outside. Even if the subscribers receive telephone calls from outside it will be so low that they will not be able to understand anything. Though Adipur and Gandhidham are in one Municipality and calls from Gandhidham to Adipur and Adipur to Gandhidham are considered to be local calls, there are two exchanges, one at Gandhidham and another at Adipur. The Adipur exchange is very old and defective and is not giving satisfactory service at all. The complainant has produced affidavit of so-many subscribers who have supported the case of the subscriber complainant.

(2.) The complainant argues before us that the appellant is taking the same bi-monthly rent as is taken for Gandhidham and other places whereas the services are so deteriorated that the Department cannot charge more than half the charges because they are providing one way service. The complainant had many grievances against the judgment of the District Forum also but since he has not appealed we have not permitted him to raise further contentions. The complainant wanted to tell us that the services have become so bad, it is practically no service at all.

(3.) Mr. Jayant Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants has strenuously argued that they are providing the services equally to all and there is no discrimination against the respondent/complainant. According to Mr. Patel assuming that there is some complaint regarding deficiency of service, the Department is suffering from stringency of finance and cannot afford to instal new machinery. In short, Mr. Patel wanted to say that we have to accept what is available. In the iastant case, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Patel. The telephone service is monopolised by the Central Government. No private agency is permitted to instal telephone communication without their licence. If they offer the services and charge the same rent as is charged'at other places, a consumer would naturally expect efficiency in service. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Department is suffering from financial stringencies, the Department should charge less or may not instal the services at all till they are in a position to provide efficient services. Mr. Patel consistently argued that he is not accepting any deficiency in service and based his argument on assumptions.