SHANMUGAM CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. TELE COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The Complainant is a Partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Pottasium Chlorate and has been registered as a Small Scale Industry. For the purpose of its business, the Complainant applied for a telephone connection to the 3rd Opposite Party on 17/8/88 and an application was made by the Managerof the Complainant's firm Mr. Subramaniam under NON-OYT-Special Scheme. The Manager is the holder of a Power of Attorney, dated 6/2/ 87 executed in his favour by the partners of the Complainant's firm. The application was Registered on 18/8/88 by the 3rd Opposite Party and a demand note was made to deposit a sum of Rs.800/on 27/8/88 and the same was deposited on 10/9/88. The Complainant's application was registered on 20/9/88 by the 3rd Opposite Party and given priority number 19 as on that date. In February, 1990 the officers of the Telecom Department inspected the factory of the Complainant and informed the Complainant that sanction has been provided for giving the connection and found that the telephone line has to cross two electric wires of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at two places and after obtaining necessary permission from the Electricity Board, further action could be taken. There was no further communication from the 3rd Opposite Party till November, 1991. According to the Complainant, in October, 1991, when the Complainant approached the 3rd Opposite Party to know the stage the Section Clerk and the Phone Inspector demanded monetary consideration. The Complainant came to know that phone connection had been given to 4 other parties by name: (1) Mr. B. S. Subramaniam; (2) M/s. K. P. S. Marriage Bed Hall; (3) M/s Balajee Textiles; and (4) M/s. Minar Textiles, overlooking the priority of the Complainant. The Complainant wrote to the 3rd Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party sent a letter, dated 7/11/91 alleging for the first time that the Complainant's application was defective as it was in the name of the Manager and it had to be registered in the name of the Managing Director. The Complainant sent a suitable reply on 12/11/91 stating that the Complainant was a Partnership Firm and there was no post of Managing Director. On 23/11/ 91, the 3rd Opposite Party sent a letter to correct the application and Managing Partner of the Complainant went to the office of the 3rd Opposite Party, but he was not allowed to correct the application. The Complainant informed the 2nd Opposite Party in writing on 6/12/91 and 7/12/91. The 3rd Opposite Party has not taken any steps to get the permission of the Electricity Board, whereas M/s. Minar Textiles and M/s. Balajee Textiles have been provided phone connection after obtaining necessary permission from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. To this date, no phone has been given to the Complainant. The Complainant has, therefore, have to put great loss and hardship. Hence this complaint for directing the Opposite Party to provide phone connection to the Complainant's factory immediately and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

(3.) The Opposite Parties have filed a common counter. It is connected that as the Complainant is not yet a subscriber, the complaint is not maintainable. It has not hired the services of the Opposite Parties at this stage. According to the Opposite Parties, the application for phone connection had been made in the name of one Mr. Subramaniam and the Form is not signed by the Managing Partner. The phone has been applied for the said Mr. Subramaniam in his individual capacity. As per the departmental instructions, in the case of Partnership Firms, all partners must sign the application. Alongwith the application, a copy of the registration of Shanmugam Chemical Industries as a Small Scale Industrial Unit was enclosed. According to the Partnership Deed, it is only the Managing Partner, who is empowered to deal with such matters. But, the Managing Partner has not applied or signed in the application. The application is defective. Even after the Complainant was informed of the defect, it did not come forward to correct, modify or alter the application. The telephone connection to M/s. Minar Textiles and M/s. Balajee Textiles were given underground connections. There was no deficiency in service and the Complainant is not entitled to compensation. The compensation claimed is also excessive.